Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:32:42

Your map doesn't do much to prove Europe is particularly religious.

In a 2003 Harris poll, 90% of Americans said they believed in God.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359

France and the UK look like they're in the 30s there, Germany in the 50s. Italy and Ireland are higher, sure, but even they're not as religious as America is and they're the exceptions, not the rule, out of the more advanced countries in Europe.

I'm not trying to make a normative argument here. I don't really give a darn which countries are more religious. I've been to Church twice since I graduated high school, and that was for my uncle's funeral and my brother's high school baccalaureate mass. But I do like being right, so I will continue to think I am.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:35:57

Well, it depends on where you put the "that's a lot of believers" line. I guess I put it right around midfield.

by **Wizlah** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:39:06

TenuredVulture wrote:On a related note, it will be very interesting to see how the firestorm over Archbishop Rowan's comments on Sharia Law in Britain works out going forward. I read the comments, and as an Liberal American Episcopalian, I found them jaw dropping. I think it demonstrates a fundamental problem with an established church.

Should be noted that said 'established church' is the CoE, itself a product of the reformation, and although it does have state sanction (set up by queen elizabeth), the principle is protestant, and firmly rooted in the idea that vatican should not hold sway over all believers. Not that I'm a filthy hun, meself, having being baptised as a catholic.

Rowan has made some fairly asinine comments in the past concerning islam, although in fairness, they are usually in the interests of promoting tolerance and understanding between religion. Reaction to his comments over here on the whole have been negative, although it bugged me slightly that the PM insisted on saying he opposed the idea on the basis that UK law should reflect british principles, handily conflating islam with damn foreigners. I would've thought the sound basis is as always a seperation of church and state. never the twain shall meet.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:48:08

Wizlah wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:On a related note, it will be very interesting to see how the firestorm over Archbishop Rowan's comments on Sharia Law in Britain works out going forward. I read the comments, and as an Liberal American Episcopalian, I found them jaw dropping. I think it demonstrates a fundamental problem with an established church.

Should be noted that said 'established church' is the CoE, itself a product of the reformation, and although it does have state sanction (set up by queen elizabeth), the principle is protestant, and firmly rooted in the idea that vatican should not hold sway over all believers. Not that I'm a filthy hun, meself, having being baptised as a catholic.

Rowan has made some fairly asinine comments in the past concerning islam, although in fairness, they are usually in the interests of promoting tolerance and understanding between religion. Reaction to his comments over here on the whole have been negative, although it bugged me slightly that the PM insisted on saying he opposed the idea on the basis that UK law should reflect british principles, handily conflating islam with damn foreigners. I would've thought the sound basis is as always a seperation of church and state. never the twain shall meet.

Interestingly, if you look at Locke's Letter, you'll find the argument is more conducive to the toleration of Islam than of Catholics. Of course, that was largely polemic, as there were few, if an Muslims in Britain at the time.

On the US side, religious toleration in the early Republic in practice meant toleration for Protestants, as there were relatively few non-Prots around to tolerate.

Most Americans on the right and left are horribly ignorant of the long history of religious freedom in the US. They have no clue what no establishment of religion means.

by **traderdave** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:03:47

jerseyhoya wrote:To dajafi, TV, and anyone else who wants to answer:

What do you think the odds are that the Democratic nominee is not known on June 1st?

Nearly 100%, IMHO; if my independent calculations are correct either Obama or Clinton would have to win nearly 60% of the available delegates (1,706) between now and June 3rd (I'll expand your time frame a bit to include Montana and South Dakota). With the way the Dem Party splits delegates it is almost impossible unless one candidate wins all the remaining states.

Texas (3/4) is the biggest remaining prize, with Pennsylvania (4/22), Ohio (3/4) and North Carolina (5/6) close behind. There are 587 delegates at stake over the next two weeks and my understanding (from the pundits and Clinton's own campaign) is that Obama should do well in those states. I mean if he is able to take 60% - 65% of those delegates maybe Texas and Ohio become a bit easier for him but if they split those delegates Obama could be in a lot of trouble heading into those two states.

by **Disco Stu** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:19:46

traderdave wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:To dajafi, TV, and anyone else who wants to answer:

What do you think the odds are that the Democratic nominee is not known on June 1st?

Nearly 100%, IMHO; if my independent calculations are correct either Obama or Clinton would have to win nearly 60% of the available delegates (1,706) between now and June 3rd (I'll expand your time frame a bit to include Montana and South Dakota). With the way the Dem Party splits delegates it is almost impossible unless one candidate wins all the remaining states.

Texas (3/4) is the biggest remaining prize, with Pennsylvania (4/22), Ohio (3/4) and North Carolina (5/6) close behind. There are 587 delegates at stake over the next two weeks and my understanding (from the pundits and Clinton's own campaign) is that Obama should do well in those states. I mean if he is able to take 60% - 65% of those delegates maybe Texas and Ohio become a bit easier for him but if they split those delegates Obama could be in a lot of trouble heading into those two states.

Unless one drops out because they are far behind.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:23:49

traderdave wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:To dajafi, TV, and anyone else who wants to answer:

What do you think the odds are that the Democratic nominee is not known on June 1st?

Nearly 100%, IMHO; if my independent calculations are correct either Obama or Clinton would have to win nearly 60% of the available delegates (1,706) between now and June 3rd (I'll expand your time frame a bit to include Montana and South Dakota). With the way the Dem Party splits delegates it is almost impossible unless one candidate wins all the remaining states.

Texas (3/4) is the biggest remaining prize, with Pennsylvania (4/22), Ohio (3/4) and North Carolina (5/6) close behind. There are 587 delegates at stake over the next two weeks and my understanding (from the pundits and Clinton's own campaign) is that Obama should do well in those states. I mean if he is able to take 60% - 65% of those delegates maybe Texas and Ohio become a bit easier for him but if they split those delegates Obama could be in a lot of trouble heading into those two states.

Basically what Stu said.

Even if one of them isn't out of it delegate wise, momentum might build up if someone was able to start consistently winning states, pressure would grow from the party for the trailing candidate to make a graceful exit so the party could unite and start fundraising/focusing on McCain.

Of course since the Clintons are in large part "the party" they might be more immune to such pressures.

I'd say it's closer to 50/50. It's been an anamoly of a race so far with no one being able to get and hold momentum. I think we're due for a change in that.

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:50:06

jerseyhoya wrote:To dajafi, TV, and anyone else who wants to answer:

What do you think the odds are that the Democratic nominee is not known on June 1st?

In terms of the delegates, traderdave has it right. I read yesterday that only about 1400 delegates are left to be won, and they both need about 1100 more to clinch. That won't happen, barring something shocking. But what might happen is that one or the other reels off a bunch of consecutive wins, Texas and Ohio don't change the momentum, and shortly after that the party bigwigs go to the candidate whom the tide is running against and tell him or her to drop for the good of the party.

I'd go so far as to say it's either done in a month, or it goes through the end of the primary season.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:55:31

I have no idea. There's really no precedent for having this many primaries with no clear nominee. The irony is all these states that used to hold primaries late moved their primaries up in order to have a meaningful primary the one year where late deciders actually matter.

And, while it looks like McCain is the presumptive R nominee, do not underestimate Huck's potential to cause trouble. Huck doesn't care about the Republican establishment, and he's probably pretty full of himself right now having outlasted Fred, Mitt, and Rudy.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:59:47

Wizlah wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not much for the God thing, but it's not exactly unique or anything to point out that Europe is pretty darn unreligious.

Right. That's the same europe where in Ireland, we have had divorce referendums turned over as recently as 1986 by the priests opposing it in their sunday sermon, and a second referendum was narrowly passed in 1996 by a margin of 7000 votes. Where in Scotland, the strict values of scots presybterianism still influence policy discussions. Or what about Barcelona, which has continued to build a cathedral for over 100 years now, out of respect to the original architect's wishes. Lets not forget the german traditionalist who is currently pope, who is busy advocating mass be spoken in latin again, and winding up jewish rabbis by insisting on including a conversion prayer for jews. Hell, we're still fighting a battle in both scotland and england to stop Faith Schools being part of the public provision of education.

When I was last in spain (Seville), it was a real eye opener to see brass bands marching to play at their local church on a sunday. When I lived in London, it was a regular sight to see folk in Brixton dressed up in their sunday best for church.

You'll excuse the exasperation, and I'm not aiming it at you personally, more the general perception that is espoused in the US that just because church and state are often kept seperate by legislation, there's a lack of belief in Europe and the various countries are somehow unreligious. We're really every bit as bigoted as any other part of the world. Half the crap that kicked off in the former yugoslavia has focussed as much on christians (of various shades) either fighting each other, or muslims. Sectarianism is still endemic in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Netherlands has legalized prostitution and marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, physician-assisted suicide. Europe is the Netherlands :!:

by **Bakestar** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:05:00

I do think it's funny how the Republican Party's longtime espousal of ideological purity comes back to bite it in the butt a little bit when there's no "perfect" candidate around.

I don't know what long-term effect that's going to have - I sense that McCain's (perceived) "moderateness" may help in the general more than it hurts - but all the hemming and hawing right now is fun to watch.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:16:56

dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:To dajafi, TV, and anyone else who wants to answer:

What do you think the odds are that the Democratic nominee is not known on June 1st?

In terms of the delegates, traderdave has it right. I read yesterday that only about 1400 delegates are left to be won, and they both need about 1100 more to clinch. That won't happen, barring something shocking. But what might happen is that one or the other reels off a bunch of consecutive wins, Texas and Ohio don't change the momentum, and shortly after that the party bigwigs go to the candidate whom the tide is running against and tell him or her to drop for the good of the party.

I'd go so far as to say it's either done in a month, or it goes through the end of the primary season.

Howard Dean convenes a clandestine meeting in a smoke-filled back room of a swanky DC restaurant (since it's the Democrats... Burger King) where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engage in a best of seven rock-paper-scissors contest. Winner is the prez nominee, loser the VP running mate.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:30:45

Bakestar wrote:I do think it's funny how the Republican Party's longtime espousal of ideological purity comes back to bite it in the butt a little bit when there's no "HAMELS" candidate around.

I don't know what long-term effect that's going to have - I sense that McCain's (perceived) "moderateness" may help in the general more than it hurts - but all the hemming and hawing right now is fun to watch.

I would suspect everyone but the extremies will line up behind McCain... party first, you know.

As for Coulter, Limbaugh, et al... since there is no perfectly ideal candidate to drool about with verbal fellatio, I think they'd prefer Clinton or Obama wins the WH so they'd have something to complain about. Gotta recruit more lemmings for ad revenues, sell books, etc. Their only real ideology is their respective "brand" enterprise.

by **momadance** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:31:06

Bakestar wrote:I don't know what long-term effect that's going to have - I sense that McCain's (perceived) "moderateness" may help in the general more than it hurts - but all the hemming and hawing right now is fun to watch.

The Limbaugh/Coulter meltdowns are entertaining.

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:33:22

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Howard Dean convenes a clandestine meeting in a smoke-filled back room of a swanky DC restaurant (since it's the Democrats... Burger King) where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engage in a best of seven rock-paper-scissors contest. Winner is the prez nominee, loser the VP running mate.

My version of this was that they go all the way to the convention, do a few ballots with no clear winner, then Obama and Hillary come on the stage together and announce on live TV they're releasing all their delegates. Gore is then unanimously nominated as pandemonium breaks out.

Vulture, I was actually hoping you'd drop some political science on our azz with the history of the nominating process. As I understand it, from episodic reading of a few campaigns over the decades (1860, 1928, 1960-68), what we're looking at now isn't at all historically unique, but it is unique in the post-McGovern era when primaries ostensibly decide the thing. Right?

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:39:02

dajafi wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:Howard Dean convenes a clandestine meeting in a smoke-filled back room of a swanky DC restaurant (since it's the Democrats... Burger King) where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engage in a best of seven rock-paper-scissors contest. Winner is the prez nominee, loser the VP running mate.

My version of this was that they go all the way to the convention, do a few ballots with no clear winner, then Obama and Hillary come on the stage together and announce on live TV they're releasing all their delegates. Gore is then unanimously nominated as pandemonium breaks out.

That's probably better than my version, since Bill would likely eat all the french fries.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:47:54

dajafi wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:Howard Dean convenes a clandestine meeting in a smoke-filled back room of a swanky DC restaurant (since it's the Democrats... Burger King) where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engage in a best of seven rock-paper-scissors contest. Winner is the prez nominee, loser the VP running mate.

My version of this was that they go all the way to the convention, do a few ballots with no clear winner, then Obama and Hillary come on the stage together and announce on live TV they're releasing all their delegates. Gore is then unanimously nominated as pandemonium breaks out.

Vulture, I was actually hoping you'd drop some political science on our azz with the history of the nominating process. As I understand it, from episodic reading of a few campaigns over the decades (1860, 1928, 1960-68), what we're looking at now isn't at all historically unique, but it is unique in the post-McGovern era when primaries ostensibly decide the thing. Right?

Except that primaries are now the way in which we expect the nomination to occur. We're really outside my field at this point, alas. Sabato's website doesn't have much either.

Just looking at everything, I expect Obama to tighten the race up and maybe even take a slight delegate lead tomorrow. The key will be PA, TX, and OH. Since OH and PA are especially critical to the Dems chances in Nov, it would probably be good overall if those states establish a clear leader.

by **Laexile** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:56:29

Bakestar wrote:I do think it's funny how the Republican Party's longtime espousal of ideological purity comes back to bite it in the butt a little bit when there's no "HAMELS" candidate around.

There has never been any more ideological purity in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. If all you pay attention to is talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere you could get that idea, but it's never been true. Just because you can yell louder than everyone else doesn't make your opinion the only one.

I find that some people from the left side of the aisle have an idea in their head what a Republican believes in. I've been told numerous times that I can't be a Republican because I'm not a fundamentalist or my stance on a number of issues.

by **Laexile** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 13:04:36

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Bakestar wrote:I do think it's funny how the Republican Party's longtime espousal of ideological purity comes back to bite it in the butt a little bit when there's no "HAMELS" candidate around.

I don't know what long-term effect that's going to have - I sense that McCain's (perceived) "moderateness" may help in the general more than it hurts - but all the hemming and hawing right now is fun to watch.

I would suspect everyone but the extremies will line up behind McCain... party first, you know.

As for Coulter, Limbaugh, et al... since there is no HAMELS ideal candidate to drool about with verbal fellatio, I think they'd prefer Clinton or Obama wins the WH so they'd have something to complain about. Gotta recruit more lemmings for ad revenues, sell books, etc. Their only real ideology is their respective "brand" enterprise.

The problem the "extremies" have with lining up behind McCain is that they'd be giving up and saying that their party doesn't only reflect their views and in fact that their views aren't the prevailing views of the party. A Republican platform that doesn't have their view on immigration, gay marriage, campaign finance reform, et al would leave them left out.

That's why a McCain presidency scares them more than a Hillary or Obama presidency. If a Dem wins they are fighting in the minority ready to make a comeback. If McCain wins they aren't even that.

by **ashton** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 13:06:15

This map also represents the percentage of unattractive women in each country.

Archived

Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)