[Akalabeth Angel]

Please provide data to back up your claim that US citizens make most of their electoral choices based on data from 'the media'.

Please define 'the media', citing specific sources (i.e. newspapers, television channels) and excluding forms of communication that you do not believe qualify.

Many people go to school for years to understand topics like these. I know people personally who study just this topic -- how people select their candidates. Their conclusions are not nearly as simple as yours. You can find such research in journals of political science as well as reputable books.

       It's funny how I'm quoting sources out the ass for everything I say and no one gives anything in return.

        The media, ie the Newspapers, the Television, distributed news on the Internet predominantly show TWO candidates from TWO parties. Obviously, most people with vote for one of those two. You don't need a study to show that, it's just common sense. You can't vote for something you don't know anything about, well you can, but then you're even dumber than ever if you do (and by "you" I mean people in general).

         The electoral debates are going to come on whenever, if they do. Last time 51 million watched them. This time, likely another 50 million people will watch. That's 50 million people, seeing two choices.

 
          But if you need real hard data rather than common sense, then, well I left my omniscience in my other pants. Sorry.

         

[Nuclear1]

       It's funny how I'm quoting sources out the ass for everything I say and no one gives anything in return.          

You've quoted some Wikipedia articles and a NWO conspiracy scare video.

*clap*

Really, your entire argument is sounding like rhetoric.  It's the same old thing we here from conspiracy nuts and overly-zealous third party folks every election year.  You're making generalizations without giving hard, concrete statistics or facts to back it up.  We're not asking for omniscience here, hardly.  We just want a little bit of credibility.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Ah frakking pirate day. I'm not arguing in pirate, 24 hours later maybe.

[MP-Ryan]

     What, if someone came into power an' really shook thin's up ye don't think people would get pissed off?  If Ralph Nader came into power an' instituted a social Health Care system similar t' Canada's, wouldn't it make sense fer th' people who make a crapload o' booty off o' th' US system t' get a little annoyed when their income changed drastically?  Or if he told th' corporations t' get out o' Iraq, let Iraq run their own damn country, with a chest full of booty.  Or if he actually moved fer peace in Israel an' Palestine, rather than simply backin' th' Israelis nay matter what they do.  
     People get shot dead fer 20 bucks, ye don't think someone would shoot th' president if they were goin' t' lose 200 million?  or some astronomical figure like, by Blackbeard's sword.  Hell Haliburton has made 13.6 Billion dollars through activities in Iraq as o' 2005 ( http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/lesar_stock.html ), ye don't think booty like wot is worth killin' fer?  Yarrrrr! If a president told them "get out o' Iraq, give them back their country, give them back their economy".

I think you're over-simplifying things enormously.  For one, a President without some backing from corporate America could never get elected in the first place.  Besides, corporations have far more effective ways of leveraging political action than killing off a candidate.

France forms nothin' but coalition governments.
In World Health Care rankin's, France is ranked #1.  The United States is ranked 37th
http://www.photius.com/rankin's/healthranks.html
In Education France is ranked 12th, th' United States is ranked 18th
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml

Canada btw, is basically a two party system.  Liberals vs th' Conservatives.  The NDP are a minor party an' could only e'er form a coalition, which they have done on occasion.  An' th' Bloc Quebois by their very nature cannot lead a government on account o' they'll ne'er gain enough seats, and dinna spare the whip, pass the grog! As fer th' Green party, well they're th' ones who can't get media airtime in Canada.  But basically it's either Liberals or Conservatives an' then everyone else.

France has a whole host of other enormous issues to deal with, not the least of which is protectionist trade practices that are STILL disrupting the economy of the EU overall.  There are many countries with coalition governments that rank both above and below the United States on various social measures.  It's irrelevant.

Furthermore, where exactly do you think I'm from?  I've lived in Canada all my life - I'm extremely well aware of how our political system functions.  The reason why I brought it up is because the US is far closer to Canada politically than it is to Europe, and look how our so-called multi-party system works.  It's still a two-side issue.  The only coalitions the NDP has ever formed is on voting issues in order to bring down a government - they've never been a part of a governing coalition.  In fact, our system doesn't even work that way.  Allied parties support specific bills, not a government (case in point being the Conservatives and the Bloc).

Beyond that, you seem to think that magically introducing a third party alternate candidate is somehow going to "fix" the US internationally.  Sorry to say, but such a simplistic fix isn't going to do it - not if the country, voter base, and corporate system that elects him/her doesn't change significantly.

And is today "International Talk Like A Pirate Day"?

[General Battuta]

Please provide data t' back up yer claim wot US citizens make most o' their electoral choices based on data from 'th' media'.

Please define 'th' media', citin' specific sources (i.e.  newspapers, television channels) an' excludin' forms o' communication wot ye dern't believe qualify.

Many people go t' school fer years t' understand topics like these.  I know people personally who study just this 'ere topic -- how people select their candidates, ye scurvey dog.  Their conclusions are not nearly as simple as yours.  Ye can find such research in journals o' political science as well as reputable books.

       It's funny how I'm quotin' sources out th' ass fer everythin' I say an' nay one gives anythin' in return.  

        The media, ie th' Newspapers, th' Television, distributed news on th' High Seas predominantly show TWO candidates from TWO parties.  Obviously, most people with vote fer one o' those two.  Ye don't need a study t' show wot, it's just common sense.  Ye can't vote fer somethin' ye don't know anythin' about, well ye can, but then ye're even dumber than e'er if ye do (an' by "ye" I mean people in general).  

         The electoral debates are goin' t' come on whenever, if they do.  Last time 51 million watched them.  Fire the cannons!  Fire the cannons! This 'ere time, likely another 50 million people will watch.  Shiver me timbers!  That's 50 million people, seein' two choices.  Drink up me hearties, yo ho, and a bottle of rum!

 
          But if ye need real hard data rather than common sense, then, well I port me omniscience in me other pants.  Sorry, avast.           

I need real hard data. Common sense is too often wrong.

Please provide data to back up the claim that Democratic and Republican candidates get media coverage that is disproportionate to public interest in them. An example of this kind of data would be an analysis of how many newspaper articles or minutes of television are devoted to each candidate, though you might also want to look at blogs, underground newsletters, and word-of-mouth.

Furthermore, please provide data on how US citizens select their electoral choices.

You don't need to be omniscient. Political scientists make their careers out of harvesting this data. You might be able to locate a database online or in a political science journal.

I'm not really interested in your general thesis -- that a third-party candidate would 'repair' the US. I'm interested in getting you to understand the complexities of what you're saying. 'Repairing' the US is not a clearcut task; there are no definite objectives or methods. It all depends on what you think the important things in the US are.

I take any chance I can get to promote pluralistic thought.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Beyond that, you seem to think that magically introducing a third party alternate candidate is somehow going to "fix" the US internationally.  Sorry to say, but such a simplistic fix isn't going to do it - not if the country, voter base, and corporate system that elects him/her doesn't change significantly.

         Obviously the US wouldn't be "fixed" in one term, but the proper leader can certainly set it down the right track. Here's one such individual, and though he's not running for president you can see in one of the videos who he endorses and it's neither McCain nor Obama. These videos are well worth watching. Note that Ron is essentially a third party candidate, Libertarian party, though he did run for the presidential nomination in the Republican party.

Ron Paul on the economy:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrIFkNispMk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLy77eOIVk

Ron shows the world he has a pair. (Even though the idiot Guilliani gets all the applause)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

His stance on the current candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk

A good compilation video (though the music gets too loud):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

Ron Paul on the Economy last year (predicting all the **** that's going down right now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AYrPZ1vPBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaTMqdYLAD4

And on Georgia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygg2uWsKK6w


 
        If a man like that became president. The world, and more importantly America, would be much better off. I may not always know what the hell I'm talking about, but this guy sure as hell does. It's too bad the american economy has to fall to pieces before people realize it. Though of course, people probably STILL don't realize it. McCain after all, did get the nomination. And the "yes man" Rudy Gulliani got all the applause during the debate for reasons that I certainly can't fathom.

[Akalabeth Angel]

The ratio has, so far as it has been kept track of, was 70% individual donations since at least a couple weeks before Hillary conceded. (Or so said CNN.) No one realized what a masterstroke his decision to take donations via the Internet in this way was until its effects became incredibly apparent. And the answer your second question is, put bluntly, absolutely. He always had a chance. CNN doesn't get paid to put your face on the air, and political infighting inside the party does not become a public mudslinging contest with TV ads because that would be criminally stupid come the time when you have to face the other party.

Btw, an old reply but something I've seen new light shed upon

Obama's donations, as of July 17th 2008
67% of all his donations were $500 dollars or more

Hillary Clinton
89% of her donations were $500 dollars or more

    Source: Page 18, July 17th, the New York Times.
    You know any friends of yours that throw 500 dollars down on a person running for a presidential nomination???

Where I saw it first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqitHwn72os&feature=related (around the 1:20 mark)

[Charismatic]

Voted for Mccane. (spelling is a pun)