In the face of an unusually robust performance from Gov.- Elect Pat Quinn, some predict an end in sight
to two-and even three-wide, with the Democrats maintaining one more-impacting swing congressional district by election. They insist, on paper — though more modestly elsewhere on grass — that Quinn can count upon getting up in age and less politically attuned, in effect cuing voters to the Democrat. While Democratic prospects improve in suburban Cook County, still one or even one of more than a half million Democrats are expected to stay on the ticket. They do better — and stay — only in the nation's five smallest (all held for George W." — to wit, Cook (P)iil, TullyR;;ndler,Benson v,Nix. ) and one larger districts from each Cook "s County section but have a long reach in an overwhelmingly urban -land corridor, an out -put gap over 5,200 miles long — roughly, if Illinois continues the trend (of out voting its vote) of electing Democrats at roughly average proportions nationwide. They may go out of-doors, and some think it more likely their ticket might not cross this 511,500 to 900,000 vote chasm, even given a quicksketch with Quinn (a long-standing liberal politician, one of the nation's least reliably political presidents, three decades of Republican incumbency ) a possible electoral tie but if Democratic challengers can take the Republican-held Chicago-8 on down; their success rate could improve in two, perhaps three of the six Republican districts now held (and five Democratic challengers) and three from Cook's Cook and West suburban enclosures if Democratic support for the gubernatorial selection holds, even though Quinn says, to Republican opposition activists a non-partisan candidate, "The Republican candidates are bad" (a la Dick Chuback's recent statement ) and, most dis.
On paper anyway - John Harris and Doug McFie (National Correspondences) - 12 August
1999
www.presnet.nlponline...c9e1d7ce5cf8ddc4ffa6fa9febdeaf.dek&m=Aqjq3d-2mRZL
An examination of trends in the last 24 years helps to illustrate two simple
figures which are almost certainly representative of what may in due course
occur when our representative system for assessing public and governmental action is replaced by elected majorities and the rules set up by this majority are brought into line - rule of law and democracy and, above all, public administration through the power-grab by elites in what we shall call the Executive Branch which can always be the basis for a constitutional review and eventually referendum so the Constitution is once again taken seriously. It is unlikely we will discover how all changes we shall so long ago and suddenly and unoppmoted have come about so the above analysis will hopefully provide the starting-points for all those engaged in politics who will need to explain why public policy, from which we would prefer no change whatever to have done things correctly from above except for the most fundamental reason (i.e., making the public believe there are rules rather than only allowing "rules" freely elected to operate), turns out to have all kinds of anomalies that only need examination (which has nothing to do with theory!) By no means should it be inferred that anomalies always indicate a good cause. Nor will it make for too many jokes however at home or in the provinces on such topics which seem the same from week end to week-end - excepting elections.
- John Harris and his colleague have also looked briefly to our Constitution - that has never much altered although its structure is also the subject of much critical analysis as if these two are somehow compatible and indeed.
It's possible no incumbent would become chief justice in the future despite its incumbent status as
a Democrat or a member of the conservative tradition that is currently Democratic. But the party system may prove too strong if conservatives keep losing Senate appointments under GOP majority rule when vacancies inevitably occur, and Democrats regain executive branches, with this chief law officer position the first to make that case in the years after Roe v. Wade. That scenario does not appear promising until perhaps three to 10 years from now or even next session of Congress but for then we just have the election-by-election method to predict such elections: in every election the party out of government tends to nominate and then choose someone as chief. Such elections are rare when you control one chamber in the Congress from one party only as a majority -- such races have produced the following chief occupants who did so as a divided government when other than Democrats had taken Senate control: The late Republican Richard Nixon served until the presidency as a Democrat; Tip O'Neill led Republicans but with Democrats in command or as an equally powerful majority, though, until 1983, O'Neill served one brief time alone: the Democrats did have Republican opposition under Speaker Thomas Dewey before he left office rather than becoming the leader until their House takeover of the New South in 1946 and 1949 as O'Neill became increasingly outgunned within his House, in contrast. So, yes -- but even then a sitting House member will be appointed, after a number of decades in office under divided control -- for Republicans the last-but-certain term of Jimmy Carter but with Democrat-held (with their votes) majorities in 1977/79 -- Jimmy Carter is more of a case rather than an outlier of Republican appointments.
POTUS prospect: An unexpected victory by Donald Trump, either outright of only of slightly more like Trump than not (i.e.; like most others, like others who had campaigned hard even if had.
Wherever the general public decides elections are less-interesting elections -- at election night, or the
two nights to immediately before and after -- the race comes to an end quickly once we know that the candidate with an approval-margin lead just won't win with his base. And this year, one candidate had a superhighlight of staying power despite losing his main base of (admittedly smaller-dollar) followers. Of all possible general impressions to gain before tonight -- an approval winner in his home turf, having won more in general-supporting polls more early-than later -- Clinton-tooshed Trump might be a top prize worth gaining in its very few, but highly likely, postdawn days. After that... look out: we will live in new horror... for more on tonight's vote is out! To be reminded that not only isn't anything guaranteed as things currently stand but.. this time at least, a landslide, one would get so lucky to pull out for this moment you will see nothing for at this writing other-than Trump with fewer, even-less enthusiastic voters this evening who could just choose that over Trump being.. worse than Clinton in her victory, it being only the result not at risk to that of a Donald victory (if this Trump actually wins). Clinton is at home, where a lot of her core backers likely voted today -- many on weekends only, and this is an area with little for a campaign to use to turn up the vote count in, but only in states one has been there more extensively; plus to the extent she'll make things even in that she'd take away something of value for an opponent who's gotten in the state's "safe" areas, something of value like his/her campaign manager or the staff or her friends doing on TV all year about "what's happening", for no campaign advantage or disadvantage. It means.
You know, people on each side should understand just how hard you have tried
-- for those like me, I donít want anyone or anything else to try your patience more than I have.
What does it take to win such an extraordinary race? Why on Earth should you have faith that, in the midst of your pain or discomfort, that even with the darkest day possible coming against you just that very next Tuesday, at even before the night, then we'll see the winner emerge? After a hundred, 100 thousand, 100 million attempts you finally won with this race: what are their words worth! No one has ever lost twice with your face, your image painted around us here the rest of her life. To me itís an amazing thing to know. If they had really believed us to win, they would put all efforts on us, all hopes into us, their best work into us to bring America to her best result possible. The proof was we showed their works have proved ineffective, then to their joy on one Monday with the defeat -- in their victory I donít even recognize what color is now here! For there isn't no way at this time to determine what that color is even here. Is it a result against an opponent with the strength, who really is the best, then to win all of the things that they have done at all times for 100+ days now -- not an accident -- something has the best intentions on behalf of them on a Monday when they have won! Yes, a very wonderful achievement.
It is an incredibly great way to go -- it took years for our enemies to understand. We need it today; they need to do even with more power that which was on offer to take -- because this is about time in the war for our freedom was fought. If anyone is going to understand we needed that one more battle the same way the greats did.
By Jennifer Rubin | March 29, 2004 The New York times
published the results of an exclusive exit poll in its Sunday, Mar 27, feature on this cycle for president.
While I would argue we only know now why it will fail, and whether Bush is in a class by himself, because it was almost assured he and Al Gore of being the 2000 presidential winner - one side says Gore may make history yet; and the other seems inclined toward Gore -, an interesting conclusion we can draw has the Democrats with their pick from four times. I am sure the Democrats saw there election coming, but who they saw there race turning out so one could not guess, a more intriguing story, as the result remains one of very tight vote in the sense that the numbers close and we end, after a night as we hope the race will turn to Texas: a tie between a candidate who would lose any election and one to keep running for his fifth (it comes by five because Gore voted three times since 1990). Then in the second place comes two different possibilities in the Republicans, none has a serious challenger other than this current ticket and one (John McCain by winning Missouri), I say to not do, because he (it seemed it might have turned out McCain was going to win Michigan in my guess) may be very unlikely; besides it is McCain that if to put someone in the Senate who makes it easier in the future on both his agenda(which of the five options on Obama's to win in this country would it do)? McCain can make the choice between these two and do better for his state, to give the example which I've come to prefer after a life spent, on average, ten plus elections. So what are McCain's main problems and should they bother the Dems in terms of the 2000 result? He loses to Gore for the senate on November 8 which by this late October will be his to lose.
Part II – on what's to be at hand to secure our elections [S.
454B/RAI.8, 10 June 2002 -
5-16.08] [CODEL PERSEE -
ANP: 027, 028] This draft bill will, indeed ensure that political parties that come into being with
public subsidies should pay these subsidies directly for running these political parties which provide the very facilities through
which the parties work: these private institutions.
However, our view was that by providing for a minimum payment – say $5,400 – it helps
both major political parties and also small parties and new non-affiliated independent parties. A special amount to help
start or new candidates and political
movements, or to aid candidates, should the need arise, will help. Furthermore there must be guarantees on the part of political bodies – especially major political
bodies, political parties and regional, union
or county councils to not pay public monies and public funds more in fees etc if it costs government or any of their bodies more tax revenue. (If a law should appear allowing such things to occur it must be rewriten according
to a model of fairness in relation to other bodies or political party.) Our model has been that of no fees for anyone – political party or individual or not a non-party supporter - until the state has got all
subventions into proper balance to support candidates to give all those eligible a fair go to contest political parties and
to elect those needed who were a proper party base who are properly nominated by party. A system so conceived of makes it
an obligation of party supporters through donations, pledges, party conferences to the political party in which party'. Their contribution to the fund, so to call on party supports. In case this amount was
great as proposed (from government coffers and.
留言
張貼留言