Election Odds

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You really have no idea do you?
The PCF's official program is a:

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIET

The Hard Left is very Illiberal and is not liberal at all.

What's PCF?

Parti Communiste Francais(French Communist Party)

[jravnsbo]

Back to election odds!...

Posted this in a less used forum but fits, Edwards has said AGAIN he doesn't want to be VP.

Edwards Says Not Interested in Vice Presidency
Sun December 28, 2003 12:19 PM ET

 
 
 
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina said on Sunday he was "absolutely not interested" in a vice presidential slot.
Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator with fewer than five years of political experience, talked optimistically of his chances in the race to take on President Bush next year, despite low poll standings in Iowa and New Hampshire where the first nominating contests begin in January.

Asked if he would agree to run in the second slot with one of eight candidates to be the Democrats' presidential nominee, Edwards said: "I'm absolutely not interested in being vice president. No, the answer to that question is no."

Edwards, who will not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate, said in an interview from his campaign headquarters in Columbia, South Carolina, that he was not dismayed by polls that place him in the single digits in the kick-off states.

"There's no problem," he told "Fox News Sunday." "If you're me and you're here on the ground and you see what's happening, I have a lead here in South Carolina, which will be the third key primary state. In Iowa and New Hampshire, I've been moving up."

As a southerner, the early Feb. 3 contest in South Carolina is make-or-break for Edwards.

A personal injury trial lawyer before being elected to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina in his first run for political office in 1998, Edwards has sounded populist themes while campaigning in the last year.

Leading in most polls is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who began the race as a little-known longshot but parlayed outspoken opposition to the Iraq war and blunt criticism of Bush into the lead.

Edwards is among his chief challengers, along with U.S. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former commander of NATO.

[© tweed]

Some guy named Hall ran as a communist in the USA many times.  He has the campaign pins on eBay-a cool thing to have...

[DarthKosh]

p-r-o-l-e-t-a-r-i-a-t

It can be spelt both ways... I'm sure of this
(why did Marx use weird words? )

Because he wasn't on the right side of sane.

Have you ever actually read anything by Marx before?
I have and Das Kapital is excellent for historical research.

Just because it's good historical referance does not mean he was sane.

[Mr. Fresh]

p-r-o-l-e-t-a-r-i-a-t

It can be spelt both ways... I'm sure of this
(why did Marx use weird words? )

Because he wasn't on the right side of sane.

Have you ever actually read anything by Marx before?
I have and Das Kapital is excellent for historical research.

Just because it's good historical referance does not mean he was sane.

I'll give Realpolitik this, Communism does look good on paper if you are looking at it for everyone to be exactly equal.  But it's never worked because people can't deal with the power, they ALL get corrupted.  Marx was a bit out there in his ideas though...

[jravnsbo]

communism CAN work if everyone worked hard towards the goal.  It can work like in a commune where the society is small, but when on a big scale lots of people get lAZY and then one dictator rises up tog et them into line and then gets too much power, hence it snowballs and doesn't work.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Marx's best work, Das Kapital is a brilliant analysis of mid C19th capitalism, it's not an ideological tract although most people who have never read it, think it is.

[Michael Z]

RP is right. A lot of people quickly jump to conclusions over Marx without ever having read any of his work. He may have inspired one of the most damaging ideologies in history, but he did have great insight into how society is structured. Furthermore, as RP mentioned, we should bear in mind that Marx was looking at 19th century feudal capitalism, a social system which was totally unjust and rotten to the core. I give him some credit for ending feudalism in Europe (but only some).

As far as communism itself is concerned, I tend to agree with Jravnsbo and Mr Fresh. It looks good on paper (and it does work in small-scale environments, such as a kibbutz), but it's simply impractical on a national scale. Though having said that, if the USSR had been shaped completely according to Marx and Engels's ideas, things may have turned out differently. Many either ignore or are simply unaware of the fact that Marx wanted a communist society to be shaped along democratic lines, with an elected council of workers (instead of one unelected leader, witness the USSR) voted for on a regular basis. But then, as Mr Fresh said, human ego simply got in the way. Also, as with capitalism we have never actually seen the ideology itself implemented, but rather many different interpretations and conceptions of it (Keynesianism, neo-liberalism, the welfare state, etc in Capitalism; Maoism, Stalinism, Bolshevism in Communism). You can't directly blame Marx, or Das Kapital, for the bastard offspring of his ideas that was Stalinism (which was basically a mixture of communism and despotism). But that's enough ism-ing for now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating communism. Its failures are carved in history. But it's important to know the facts before passing judgement, instead of blindly accepting the notion that communism is bad mmkay.

[Gustaf]

communism CAN work if everyone worked hard towards the goal.  It can work like in a commune where the society is small, but when on a big scale lots of people get lAZY and then one dictator rises up tog et them into line and then gets too much power, hence it snowballs and doesn't work.

Actually, when you think about it, the family is probably the place where communism is really present.

Secondly, Marx was primarily a historian and economist rather than idelouge and he made a great analysis of history and economics. He was wrong on the core issue of whether the poor can get reasonable living situations without a revolution. Marx thought they couldn't and it turns out they could. That means that his ideological theme falls. Btw, there was an escellent "interview" with Marx in the Prospect earlier this year, anyone who is interested should read it. It was rather funny...

[© tweed]

Actually, when you think about it, the family is probably the place where communism is really present.

Good point.  I never thought of it that way.

[Nym90]

So shouldn't conservatives complain then about how they have to give their hard earned money to their children? Parents earned the money, and they should be allowed to keep it, and the government shouldn't have a law that says you must use your money to help provide for your children, right? That's a pretty socialistic law, when you think about it.
Even the most ardent conservative would have to agree that communism works very well in small units, such as the family. The overall standard of living for the family is higher even though it is lower for those at the top. It is true, though, that the larger the group, the less likely it is to work since people have a harder time keeping perspective on the potential pros and cons of the system and try to get something for nothing instead.

[jravnsbo]

what law says the family has to give to children, not sure what you are referencing.


Plus taking care of children or people that are not yet able to take care of themselves is hardly communism.  All forms of society have to teach the basic tenents of life to live.

[Nym90]

Well, parents are required by law to provide their children with basics such as food, clothing, shelter, etc. or else they are guilty of child abuse, and the children can be taken away by a court.
Also, I'd say it is at least socialistic if not completely communistic, since parents who earn far more money than their children (children earn no money at all when they are young) give up their hard earned money and allow their children to derive benefit from it even though they did not work for it. It would seem that under conservative principles parents should not give handouts to their children, and should force them to work in order to earn their own money for food, clothing, shelter, etc. It shouldn't matter how much money the parents have, or what the ability of the children to work is, the parents earned it and should be allowed to keep it.
Liberal principles, however, say that the more fortunate have a societal obligation to help out the less fortunate, and that this at least partially overrides the rights of the wealthy to keep the money that they have earned.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Monks are communists...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Now it's almost 9 1/2 months until election day, and I'm going to raise the chance of a major geopolitical event (such as another terrorist attack on the US or on the troops in Iraq) to 50% from 35%.  So, Im going to lower Bush's chances to 60% from 65%.

Dem nomination:
Dean 65%
Clark 25%
Geph 5%
Other 5%

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd say that Bush has a 50-55% chance of winning re-election, and the Democratic nomination could go several ways.

[© tweed]

I'd say that Bush has a 50-55% chance of winning re-election, and the Democratic nomination could go several ways.

Bush has a 70% chance of re-election in my book.  Kim Jong II is the main obstacle for his re-election.

Dem nomination:

Dean 70%
Clark 15%
Gephardt 10%
Edwards <5%
Other <1%

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'd say that Bush has a 50-55% chance of winning re-election, and the Democratic nomination could go several ways.

Excluding terrorists attacks, I'd put Bush's chances right now at 90%.  No president has even lost reelection during rapid economic expansion.  What's more, a large majority of American's like Bush personally.  Bush's polls and the undercurrents closely resembles Reagan's in early 1984.

Also, Bush has the South locked-up, none of the Dem candidates could challenge Bush in the South.  Clark MAY be able to win Ark, but that's all.

Only a major terrorist event that portrays Bush's war strategy in a bad light could derail Bush.  

If Bush is reelected, I think there is a 75% chance that we'll be at war with Iran before the end of 2005.

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's encouraging.
What about North Korea?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What about North Korea?

I mentioned Iran because there are fresh reports that WMD from Iran have been moved into Iraq for a major WMD (bio or chem) attack on Baghdad or US troops.

If that happens, Bush would probably respond with nuclear forces.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bush is reelected, I think there is a 75% chance that we'll be at war with Iran before the end of 2005.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, cool -  I have no reason to agree or disagree with this prediction, but if there's a chance, it sure gives me another reason to be pulling for Bush.  I tend not to hope for too much, even from a Republican administration.
Yeah - lets topple those Mullahs!

Anyway I put Bush's re-election chances at 70%.  A stock market crash/dollar crash or possibly some terrorist event could derail it - though the terrorist event might actually help because the more dangerous the world looks the less people trust Dems - especially one like Dean.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bush is reelected, I think there is a 75% chance that we'll be at war with Iran before the end of 2005.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, cool -  I have no reason to agree or disagree with this prediction, but if there's a chance, it sure gives me another reason to be pulling for Bush.  I tend not to hope for too much, even from a Republican administration.
Yeah - lets topple those Mullahs!

Anyway I put Bush's re-election chances at 70%.  A stock market crash/dollar crash or possibly some terrorist event could derail it - though the terrorist event might actually help because the more dangerous the world looks the less people trust Dems - especially one like Dean.

Don't be ridicuulous. You don't want to fight Iran, or North Korea for that matter. It's funny; all of you Republicans are so fiercely patriotic, and yet you fail to see that the same feelings exist in other countries. Most people will fight back if they're invaded, even if their government is not an absolute favourite. A government has to be extremely unpopular, like Saddam Hussein, for people to "accept" an invasion from a foreign power. And it would be a bloody and futile excercise to try and occupy a country with, what, 70 million inhabitants? I really hope Bush don't get completely carried away with assaulting sovereign nations on a whim. Sooner or later you'll end up in another Vietnam.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it would be a bloody and futile excercise to try and occupy a country with, what, 70 million inhabitants?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I don't know, the British occupied India for quite a long time, and it contained a lot more than 70 mil, even back then.  

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bush is reelected, I think there is a 75% chance that we'll be at war with Iran before the end of 2005.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, cool -  I have no reason to agree or disagree with this prediction, but if there's a chance, it sure gives me another reason to be pulling for Bush.  I tend not to hope for too much, even from a Republican administration.
Yeah - lets topple those Mullahs!

Anyway I put Bush's re-election chances at 70%.  A stock market crash/dollar crash or possibly some terrorist event could derail it - though the terrorist event might actually help because the more dangerous the world looks the less people trust Dems - especially one like Dean.

Don't be ridicuulous. You don't want to fight Iran, or North Korea for that matter. It's funny; all of you Republicans are so fiercely patriotic, and yet you fail to see that the same feelings exist in other countries. Most people will fight back if they're invaded, even if their government is not an absolute favourite. A government has to be extremely unpopular, like Saddam Hussein, for people to "accept" an invasion from a foreign power. And it would be a bloody and futile excercise to try and occupy a country with, what, 70 million inhabitants? I really hope Bush don't get completely carried away with assaulting sovereign nations on a whim. Sooner or later you'll end up in another Vietnam.

Iraq does have the potential of becoming another Vietnam. Capturing Saddam is a awesome feat, but things can still escalate and get nasty, big time.

[jravnsbo]

Potential yes, always everything has potential.  But reality says attacks are down.  They (terrorists) havbe just been lucky to hit large numbers in single attacks.  It was said just the other day that in one of the dangerous towns they were down from 17 to 5 attacks a day.

Plus if we keep rounding up these leaders such as #54 and Al-Douri (hopefully soon) we will break the resistance completely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Iraq does have the potential of becoming another Vietnam. Capturing Saddam is a awesome feat, but things can still escalate and get nasty, big time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.