Question(s) about American politics.

[Noah]

From what I see, there's always two candidates that is way more profiled, and expected to race for the win.

What do the other guys get after the election? Candidates like Mike Gravel and Mike Huckabee has never even been close to be considered as real contenders, but they still have campains that is probably costing millions (I'm not going to be 100% on this, I don't trust our biased media).

Also, how does it matter if the candidate is democrat or republican?

Lol fuck, I put this in the wrong forum. Someone move it to GD please.

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

HAH!
GTFO wrong forum

Btw I have a discussion going on USA politics. Maybe you should read it?

[Noah]

HAH!
GTFO wrong forum

Btw I have a discussion going on USA politics. Maybe you should read it?

I've tried to stay away from most US politics discussions, because I'm not too fond of meddling into foreign politics. When it came to the point where I couldn't avoid getting interested, that thread were already 6-7 pages and tl;dr.

[Nimrook]

Also, how does it matter if the candidate is democrat or republican?

there is a big different in there... just like how they have Liberals and Conservatives in many different countries, the two parties with different views.. so one can be extremely different than the others

[Ephemeral]

For example with the Democrats, Clinton and Obama are the only two still in the race. Edwards dropped out but note that he has not endorsed or given the delegates he won to either Clinton or Obama.
He will hold delegates until the Democratic convention and use them to get concessions/favors/influence. If the delegate count between Clinton and Obama is close enough, the Edwards delegates may represent the deciding factor.

[Noah]

For example with the Democrats, Clinton and Obama are the only two still in the race. Edwards dropped out but note that he has not endorsed or given the delegates he won to either Clinton or Obama.
He will hold delegates until the Democratic convention and use them to get concessions/favors/influence. If the delegate count between Clinton and Obama is close enough, the Edwards delegates may represent the deciding factor.

So if I get this right, it doesn't matter what party someone is representing, it only shows roughly what political background/views they have. When it comes down to the election, it doesn't matter which party a candidate is from. They are against eachother independant of what party they are from. The last two candidates in a race could both be Democrats. That's why Obama and Clinton is throwing shit at eachother in public at times.

It's a bit confusing because I'm from Norway, we do things very differently. We basically have lots of parties, and we vote for the party alone, and it's up to them to make sure to get state positions based on how many votes they get. We never vote for an individual. This is why I've always been somewhat puzzled when I see two who are supposted to be from the same party going at eachother.

I just want to understand, not pick a view and lecture everyone about it.

[Vykromond]

OK, let me start at the top.

1) They can get a lot of things. Some candidates are "issue candidates." They'll stay in a race past their expiration date because it gives them a convenient platform to present their pet issues in a forum (lol) where a lot of people will hear them. Other candidates want to show that they can curry the favour of some part of the electorate, making them strong candidates for Vice President. Or they want to show that they are competent in some other way and thus should get a cabinet position of some kind. Some people are just dreamers and think they can win even when a cooler head would have them drop out.

Mike Gravel is barely campaigning at all and has no cash-on-hand to speak of. Consequently, since he doesn't really have a campaign, he's not incurring that much in campaign costs. The guy is not well-off and basically lived in poverty for some time after his Congressional stint. This guy was basically an issues candidate from the start, there to point out how everyone else was an idiot and basically part of the same corrupt political process. [1]

Mike Huckabee is a mix of everything I said above. He's just crazy enough to think he can win even though he probably can't. He wants to represent his set of values as a choice (mostly stuff from the evangelical Christian playbook) so that Republicans don't just have the slightly-more-moderate view espoused by McCain. He definitely wants the VP pick if McCain does win- though he won't get it.

2) In some ways, parties influence the candidates and vice versa. The "Party of Reagan" (Republicans) is not the same as the former "Party of Bush" (Republicans), but they're both Republican Parties in an overarching sense. But "shows roughly what political background/views they have" is more or less right.

Where you're wrong is this: "When it comes down to the election, it doesn't matter which party a candidate is from. They are against eachother independant of what party they are from. The last two candidates in a race could both be Democrats."

Each of the two major political parties in America can pick only one candidate for President. That's who the process of 'primaries,' which are the voting events going on right now that you've been hearing so much about, is designed to pick. Eventually, around the parties' National Conventions (basically big group hug sessions/pitched battles that the parties hold in election years) a nominee will be anointed on both sides. [2]

The reason Obama and Clinton are fighting is that both of them want to be the Democratic nominee for president.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

[1] A salient argument in some ways, but he was crazy for other reasons which aren't important.
[2] It's a little more complicated than this but I doubt you care all that much about the stupid, convoluted minutiae.

[Noah]

That hit everything on the spot, Vyk, thank you for taking the time to explain it for me.

So it will end up with the Democrat vs the Republican.
I've seen some election numbers, and the Democrat candidates gets alot more votes than the Republican candidates. Does this mean that after the Democrats are done picking a candidate, then you pretty much have a new president? Or will the voting change drastically when you're down to one candidate per party?

[Jason]

heh, you would think that'd be the case noah. unfortunately, our system of general election is just as cluster fucked as our primary voting. just look at what happened with bush vs. gore.

for our general election (that's the one in november where we finally pick our next president), we have a thing called an "electoral college". basically, this is a system in which one state is worth a certain amount more than others. for example, let's say 75% of voters in a big state like california vote for mccain. and then let's say 75% of voters in three smaller states like montana, oregon and north dakota vote for obama. and let's say that most of the election results pan out this way, with obama winning more states in total than mccain by around 2 to 1. if mccain wins in all the bigger, more populous states, he can still win the election. even if obama receives more votes than him overall!

isn't that just plain silly?

(by the way, i forgot to mention that a majority of the time, in a majority of states, you must be registered with one party or another to even be allowed to vote. that is, if you aren't a registered democrat or republican, you can't vote.)

[Vykromond]

Actually small states are overrepresented in the electoral college relative to their population, not large states.

[Jason]

yeah, what he said.

my larger point though, and the one that bugs the shit out of me, is that you can win the popular vote and not win the election.

[PH]

gd

[Noah]

Thanks guys, made me understand the basics of how the election works. Now I can atleast follow it, and see how it goes. :wub:

If you want to know anything about the grand politics of Norway, feel free to ask me in return, it's superexciting material!

[freddie]

Well Ill drop some questions here too.

1) In the end will it be candidate vs candidate or Democrats vs Republicans?
How much the candidates themselves really matter?

2) Since Democrats have woman and black man in their top 2, how much that effects? Is USA ready for "non white male" president?

[Zerzera]

2) Since Democrats have woman and black man in their top 2, how much that effects? Is USA ready for "non white male" president?

Firstly that depends on whether the elections will be fair this time. Minorities and poor people don't always get a chance to vote.


Also, the "worth" of certain states (Southern -racist -) in the final elections doesn't really have anything to do with their population, just that it was set this way at the end of the civil war to make them agree, right?