How Barack Obama Got Elected

[Didacus]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1704769' date='Nov 19 2008, 01:56 PM']The Untied States is a Federal Republic.[/quote]

Do expalin the nuance of a difference with a 'democratic' republic.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='XIX' post='1704619' date='Nov 19 2008, 08:14 AM']1) See above

2) They'd probably flunk, which would further prove the point that voters were horrendously uninformed about the election[/quote]

I've seen a few studies that suggest that Republican voters are more informed that Democrat voters.

Here is a quote from one I was able to find.

"Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least." [url="http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions"]SOURCE[/url]

[Didacus]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1704769' date='Nov 19 2008, 01:56 PM']The Untied States is a Federal Republic.[/quote]


Are you sure?

[quote]Government and elections
Main articles: Federal government of the United States and Elections in the United States

The west front of the United States Capitol, which houses the United States CongressThe United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[44] [b]It is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, though U.S. citizens residing in[/b] the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials.[45] The[/quote]

Emphasis my own.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US#Government_and_elections"]democracy in the US[/url]

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1704779' date='Nov 19 2008, 02:11 PM']I've seen a few studies that suggest that Republican voters are more informed that Democrat voters.[/quote]


I personally believe that. For one thing, the Republican party tends to be the party made up mostly of people who have strong Judeo-Christian values, and tend to be more patriotic. That means they tend to have very strong convictions, stand to lose more when Dems are in power, and as a result tend to be more aware, alert and informed. Really, it's pretty obvious. On the flip side, I find that Dems (both the ones I read about and the ones I know) tend to focus only on the things that will suport their own liberal views which end up being gay rights, abortion, and open borders. They also tend to be the most critical of America as a nation (less patriotic than Repubs). As a result, they tend to ignore everything else and are therefore less informed and more quick to ignore or overlook any valid criticisms of the politicians they support.

[Seven77]

The US is a Republic with a Democratic government...

[KnightofChrist]

It is a matter of present and historical fact that the Untied States is a Federal Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy. Search the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution and you will not find the words Democratic or democracy. One will find however in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a [b]Republican[/b] Form of Government."


--------


[url="http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html"]Is the United States a democracy?[/url]

The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

[indent] . . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).
[/indent]

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

[indent]There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
[/indent]

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

Edited November 19, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Lil Red]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1704916' date='Nov 19 2008, 03:50 PM']It is a matter of present and historical fact that the [b][color="#FF0000"]Untied[/color][/b] States is a Federal Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
sorry, but that's just funny

[princessgianna]

...that video was hilarious

Edited November 20, 2008 by princessgianna

[XIX]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1704895' date='Nov 19 2008, 06:23 PM']I personally believe that. For one thing, the Republican party tends to be the party made up mostly of people who have strong Judeo-Christian values, and tend to be more patriotic. That means they tend to have very strong convictions, stand to lose more when Dems are in power, and as a result tend to be more aware, alert and informed. Really, it's pretty obvious. On the flip side, I find that Dems (both the ones I read about and the ones I know) tend to focus only on the things that will suport their own liberal views which end up being gay rights, abortion, and open borders. They also tend to be the most critical of America as a nation (less patriotic than Repubs). As a result, they tend to ignore everything else and are therefore less informed and more quick to ignore or overlook any valid criticisms of the politicians they support.[/quote]
Well, I agree. I guess what I should have said is that, even of the GOP is also uninformed, that would only serve to support the idea that Obama won because the [i]voters [/i]are ignorant. Of course, if the GOP is more educated then this indicates that uneducated [i]democrats [/i]

Either way, there is no way to feel good about how Obama won. (as if the fact that he won at all wasn't bad enough.)

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1704954' date='Nov 19 2008, 07:22 PM']+J.M.J.+
sorry, but that's just funny [/quote]

Backwards I hate it when I get stuff.

[Didacus]

I still say: long live democracy.

Isn't the rigvht to vote a representative into the presidency what everyone wants?

[Winchester]

I doubt most voters, one way or the other, knew croutons.

Fact is, the electoral college failed to protect us. These people did not elect the president.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1705184' date='Nov 19 2008, 11:48 PM']I still say: long live democracy.[/quote]

If 'democracy' is used as slang for our Federal Constitutional Republic, I agree.

[quote name='Didacus' post='1705184' date='Nov 19 2008, 11:48 PM']Isn't the rigvht to vote a representative into the presidency what everyone wants?[/quote]

Your speaking of a Federal Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. But anyway this is somewhat off topic, is it not?

[kujo]

I sent this video to my friend who is a big Obama supporter, but an extremely intelligent guy. Here are his responses:

[quote]I'm disinclined to take that site very seriously. Their agenda being obvious, I don't doubt that they cherry-pick those interviews for maximum effect. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the interviewee's were chosen based on the interviewer recognizing them as uninformed.

For one thing, "informed" and "intelligent" aren't necessarily linked. The folks in those interviews might well be brilliant at microbiology, but totally ignorant and swayed only by passion when it comes to politics. I'd say that the vast majority of the electorate falls into that category.

On your second thought... McCain's supporters would indeed know who controlled Congress, because Pelosi, Reid, and Senate Democrats were regularly demonized in stump speeches. But I'd bet hefty sums of money that the average McCain supporter didn't know anything about Pelosi and Reid besides their names, a (D), and that somehow they were responsible for all the evil of the past 8 years despite only having power for two. And the average McCain voter (along with the average American) also probably had no idea that no matter how much we "drill, baby, drill," we'll never scrounge up more than the tiniest fraction of our total oil use. And 1 out of every 4 Texans still thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The bias of the media in their reporting is not towards an ideology or a candidate (unless you're watching Fox or MSNBC), but rather towards the most interesting or sensational story, and towards whoever appears to have momentum.

Prior to the national conventions, a Pew study found that although Obama received much more air time than McCain, 70% of that coverage was negative, versus a much smaller (and forgettable) percentage of negative coverage for McCain.

Immediately following Palin's speech, coverage of McCain's campaign was hugely positive. Mainstream sources weren't the ones carrying the smear that Trig was actually Bristol's baby. Only internet blogs did that. The mainstream media initially loved her and loved the McCain camp. Why? Not because they were pro-McCain, but because they were pro-story and pro-momentum. McCain captured the momentum following that pick right up until the economic crisis broke out. Instead of focusing on issues, they focused on lipstick and pigs (negative coverage of Obama).

I remember being absolutely livid during that time, because the had become so cowed down after the Trig/Bristol internet smearfest and the Republican National "Bash-The-Media-and-the-City-Dwellers" Convention, that they seemed totally unwilling to report on actual negative stories of Palin. It wasn't till around the Gibson interview and then the disastrous Couric interview that they got serious about their jobs again.

From the economic crisis on, coverage of McCain was indeed very very negative. But that's because his campaign was very much in the crapper. His commercials had entered the territory of obscene, perverted, and disgusting lies that dwarfed the distortions in Obama's commercials. There truly is no comparison between saying that McCain wanted to gamble social security in the stock market, and that Obama wanted to teach sex to kindergartners. No comparison. And so McCain's ads got the very negative coverage they deserved.

Then McCain started pulling crazy stunts like the fake campaign suspension, and his running mate started saying Obama pals around with terrorists. Their rabble rousing got their crowds whipped into a frenzy (and it's a verifiable fact that threats against Obama's life spiked during this period of the McCain campaign), and those crowds ended up saying embarrassing, vitriolic things at rallies. More negative coverage followed, and rightly so.

On the other hand you had Obama, who was playing it tremendously cool. His numbers were up, he was presenting sound policy initiatives, and he wasn't going around saying "the fundamentals of our economy are sound" and then trying to redefine "fundamentals" to mean "workers," in a ridiculous attempt to cast his opponent as anti-worker. He wasn't racing back to Washington to fix a problem he has no jurisdiction over, only to linger in New York for a day and say not a single word at the meeting he convinced the President to hold. He wasn't threatened to postpone the debate.

Nope, instead Obama was looking and sounding like a President. The momentum shifted to him and so did the campaign coverage, just as both had shifted to McCain earlier.

McCain's campaign brought negative coverage down on him. And despite that, the media continued to pretend it was still neck and neck right up until election day. They all decided that even though he was down some 8 or 10 points in Pennsylvania, they'd call that a "battleground state." Why? Not because they were biased towards McCain, but because they are biased towards the story. They didn't want the horse race to be over -- that's bad for ratings. Even on election night, when CNN called Ohio for Obama and John King was unable to make his "magic map" produce a McCain victory without flipping... California, Oregon, or Washington... they still avoided calling the election for Obama.

So although I'm sure most journalists were pro-Obama, I think their bias in reporting is not towards him or towards his ideology. Nope. It's towards sensational stories, winners, and anything that will keep the story alive for one at least one more commercial break.

Here's a politico article I tend to agree with.
[url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html"]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html[/url][/quote]

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='XIX' post='1705059' date='Nov 19 2008, 09:51 PM']Well, I agree. I guess what I should have said is that, even of the GOP is also uninformed, that would only serve to support the idea that Obama won because the [i]voters [/i]are ignorant. Of course, if the GOP is more educated then this indicates that uneducated [i]democrats [/i]

Either way, there is no way to feel good about how Obama won. (as if the fact that he won at all wasn't bad enough.)[/quote]


"Educated" and "informed" are not the same things. I believe there are millions of un-informed, but educated, people in America. They helped elect Barack Obama.