In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
You don't think that's another case of "too much" democracy? What if Obama was elected to a third term? Your point would be totally valid if everyone voted informed and on the issues. We're a "straight ticket" kind of country.
I like term limits. Lack thereof, particularly in the Oval Office, could lead in a very, very bad direction. I like term limits for all levels of national political office, but it's maybe not quite so important as with the office of the POTUS.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything....just being clear, but:
If you had a Prez that was so wildly popular with the people that he couldn't be overcome, you would have many other politicians lining up to protect and serve the man. Next thing you know, you can't get anything but filtered information and the person essentially becomes a dictator. I think this is just 1 of many reasons our founding fathers saw fit to have term limits. They'd had a King/Queen before, and it wasn't much fun if they wanted you to do something you didn't want to do.
With the current party status quo, you can't.
However, the republican party is dying and will change dramatically in the next 20 years. That's where the change in political climate is going to come from.
Disagree again. Although I do see your point.
Look at Britain, PMs have no limits, never have and if I recall correctly their longest serving Prime Minister was like 15 years in modern history, modern being like 4 centuries, lol.
As long as elections are legitimate no politician would ever serve a very long time, it's the nature of politics, eventually the public will get tired of you. Eventually the economy is going to recede, some scandal is going to happen etc.
This has been a good thread. Everyone please ignore this post and don't take the bait.
We hear that of the other party every time control of the WH changes. Dem party was supposedly dead after Reagan and all it did was move further to the left when Reagan took the fiscally conservative dems. Nothing will change without a change to the system.
Scored 4 touchdowns...in a single game. Polk High!
I could counter with: Obama got elected to a 2nd term even amidst major economic concerns.
I think you're just putting a little too much stock in the voting populace to truly be informed and vote accordingly.
The PM is elected by the parliament and they can kick him out any time. The president is elected by the electoral college but remains in office for 4 years unless impeached.
My son's message to Obama, Clemson, and Georgia
I understand that. But they get kicked out because they become political liabilities, and the public still votes in General Elections at least every five years.
In a democratic form of government it isn't possible for one man to stay on top but for only so long.
Look at the demographics of young people. Republicans are way out of touch on social issues - so either the party changes or it dies.
He is kind of right though, but it won't just be the Republican party. Both parties are composed of conflicting alliances. With the Republicans you have the libertarians, but also the religious crazies and the nationalists. With the Democrats you have a weird mixture of trade unionists(who are slowly dying away), environmentalists, and yuppies.
Simply part of the cycle.
4. The next generation of new voters will probably be more Republican-inclined than this one
Very well, you might say, but what about the addition of voters who turned 18 since 2004? Surely, they have tilted the electorate. Yet, the now 18-25 year-olds mostly took over for the 75-plus year-olds in 2004, who were very Democratic. That's why age cohorts who cast a ballot in 2004 and 2012 voted the same relative to national vote, even as more millennials have turned 18.
Of course, a steady parade of Democratic millennials could make hell for the Republican party. They will be replacing the 60-74 year-olds of 2004 and now 68-82 year-olds, who have been 6-8pt more Republican than the nation as whole.
The good news for Republicans is that the new 13-18 year-olds don't seem to be like today's 18-32 year-old voters. As I noted last week, the men and women college freshmen of 2012 were 4-5pt less liberal than those of 2008, which brings them closer to middle-of-the-road freshmen of the beginning of the Carter and Clinton administrations.
High school students can't vote yet, but scientific polling on them can be predictive. In 2004, 13-17 year-olds would have voted for John Kerry in the same numbers as those 18-24 per Gallup/Knowledge Networks. That translated into a huge win for Obama among 18-24 year-olds in 2008. In 2008, Harris Interactive found that those under 18 would have voted in a similar manner to their older co-millennials. And that, too, translated into a huge Obama win among 18-24 year-olds in 2012.
In 2012, high school students seem to be far more conservative. The margin among high school students in an American University/GfK poll between Obama-Romney was 20pt closer than among all college students, who as a group voted in the same fashion as all 18-29 year-olds. These high school students were also far more likely to be against abortion than their college counterparts.
The more limited liberalism of these 13-18 year-olds has, again, to do with youth responding to the president they grew up under. President Obama's administration has been, by historical standards, middlingly successful – as can be seen in his projected historical ranking, so the voters who grew up under him are more oriented to the middle ground of politics, too.
The distinction is that the republican party is chiefly made up of the religious nutjobs, and that's going to go away. You'll see a more dramatic change than you will in the democratic party.
And honestly, I'm still unsure if the union-backers are going anywhere. Feels like there is too much money there for them to totally die.
But what is the stance on social issues among these 13-18 year olds?
dpfenny, that's interesting.
That's certainly part of it - people grew up a little more liberal because 'screw Bush'. At the same time, it's the social issues where the republican party is going to have to adapt or die. Young people are overwhelmingly for gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-contraception, pro-sex education, etc. etc.
That's what I was talking about.
He was probably talking about Congressmen.
Many of our Congressman have been in office for 30 years.
Its worse than the Politburo was in the USSR.
Lulz. Education of peace, I didn't know the people alive post WWII were our "founding fathers"
Lulz now I feel bad, didn't mean to be combative but every American should know FDR was elected for four terms. He was the president in the most crucial era of America since the revolutionary war.
The presidential election is nothing more than a popularity contest. The further away you get from the national elections/media hype the closer you get to people voting more for what they think they believe in and less in whether on not they like or relate to the candidate. Those elections continue to go back and forth with every election cycle.
The Dems will probably have to adapt too on education reform, tax reform, maybe eventually even on social security, but not so much out of public pressure as adjusting to newer economic realities.
No reason to feel bad...brainfart on my part, and honestly an obvious lack of constitutional knowledge. It was never something I was interested in when I was still in school. I have opinions, obviously, but I don't watch much news and haven't studied anything about the constitution since at least freshman year of college.
I think it's always been that way. People seem to be more liberal when they're younger. Once they have some years under them and see the world for what it really is they change their views.
True but that's usually in regards to economic issues when people start making more money and get generally grumpier towards minorities, I don't think preference towards gay and women's rights deters over time.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports