The Democrats who voted with their "hormones" or "hearts" in 2008 voted for Kucinich. Obama was the "head" vote.

But, revelwoodie..... their heads were so far up where the sun don't shine.....It was American Idol 2008--Political Edition

Mike, I can see Obama was not your candidate, and that's fine. We don't all have to vote for the same guy. But American Idol? Really? Maybe you saw nothing but Obama's personality and rhetoric, and so he was just a pumped up celebrity to you. But for the vast majority of Americans who voted for him, they saw a brilliant, well educated, even tempered man with good leadership qualities. More importantly, we saw someone who shared our priorities -- growing the economy from the middle and working classes, not just the wealthy.

Look - I don't need to make you agree with me in order to respect your opinions. Go ahead and vote Republican. Go ahead and dislike Obama. But please, PLEASE, do it for well thought out reasons, not knee-jerk emotional reactions like "American Idol 2008."

@hs321:

Not quite the case.

The reason France has a runoff is because the requirement for gettng elected President of that nation is to have an absolute majority. The flip side is their president has powers which are far greater than ours. I prefer the checks and balances we have to prevent dictators - which DeGaulle was.

Thank you Mr. Madison.

@ revelwoodie:

First things first, I did NOT vote for Bush:

However I clearly remember the Knee-jerk reactions and comments of many who opposed him. Some of Ms. Pelosi's comments were downright unprofessional and bordered on hatred. Madonna's were worse. It is quite arrogant to think ones party, republican or democratic, should not be targeted when the same accusations can be levied at their own.

Goerge Washington was right on one thing - Political parties do cause factional mischief, along with the good of enfranchisement. However they only press for enfranchisement where it will help them electorally.

@T.R. -- When it comes to civility and professionalism in our political discourse, you'll get no argument from me. I'm totally with you on that.

But your enfranchisement comment disturbed me a bit. Enfranchisement is something else that we should ALL be able to agree on, regardless of our political affiliation. We are a democratic republic. And a democratic republic can only function healthily if the entire citizenry is empowered to participate. There is, unfortunately, a lot of politicization around enfranchisement now -- on the Right. Every independent analysis shows that voter ID laws, for example, disproportionately affect low income voters and minorities, people who are more likely to vote Democratic. Which is why Republican legistures are so keen on them. One of the first priorities of the Bush Justice Department was to prosecute voter fraud cases, even though no legitimate cases of voter fraud were discovered after multiple investigations. It was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to shrink the franchise, which led to the US Attorney scandal, you may recall, when so many were fired for refusing to prosecute these fabricated charges. Conservative think tanks and action groups still go on about it, though - Posecute rampant voter fraud! Enact tougher Voter ID laws! Shorten early voting!

I see by your comment that you concede the partisan divide on this issue. Instead of criticizing Democrats for wanting to grow the franchise because "it will help them electorally," maybe you should being turning your anger toward the Republican lawmakers who want to shrink it.

French citizens elect Sarcozy because they where fed-up with the bad economy, as a consequence of socialist governments like Miterrand with other socialist whose policies of wealth redistribution , and a more gevernment dependent population create a big deficit. Mr. Hollander will go back to those same policies, Socialist policies did not work and those policies are responsible of the situation of Europe in general the policies of open borders create another problem that Sarcozy and Le Pen want to continue addressing. The multiculturalism is the enemy of France and socialistwill do nothing to change it. Here in United States Obama is moving to the same direction of those socialist European countries with 5trillion more of deficit in less than 4 years. , pushing for higher taxes, more government dependency, more regulations , more taxes.

Every independent analysis shows that voter ID laws, for example, disproportionately affect low income voters and minorities

revel .....did you know that in France is a requirement to show ID to vote?

No, Oskar. I don't know much about the French electoral process. I also don't know anything about whether the ID requirements in France have the same effect as voter ID laws in America. If you're French, maybe you don't know the problem these laws cause in the USA, so I'll sketch it out for you briefly.

1) America has a big poverty problem. Far worse than anyone living in France could even picture. Most poor people move frequently, every 6 months to a year in urban areas especially. So what happens when the poor city dweller shows up to vote the same place they did last time, and their ID shows they no longer live there? They can't vote. They probably only moved 3 blocks away, but that doesn't matter. The urban poor very often have addresses on their IDs that are no longer accurate.

And that's if they have ID at all. Many of these people do not have cars or drivers licenses. Voter ID laws allow for them to get some "state ID" in many cases. But getting one means taking off work, finding a sitter for the kids, borrowing someone's car to go to wherever this process happens, etc. It creates a hurdle that would discourage most people from bothering to vote, never mind just the working poor who don't have the time or the money for this nonsense.

2) Minority voters? Well, because they are disproportionately likely to be city dwellers and/or poor, see #1.

3) College students! Many of them don't have cars if they're attending school away from home. They don't bother to get a drivers license in the state they attend school if they're not going to be driving. Many Voter ID laws specifically bar using student IDs at polling stations. If that isn't an obvious attempt to keep college kids from voting, I mean -- come on, right?

So there you go -- poor people, minorities and college students. Every independent analysis produced shows that here, in the USA, voter ID laws affect these groups more than any other. And these are the groups most likely to vote for Democrats. This is why American conservatives push for these laws, and why anyone of conscience, on the Left or the Right, should be outraged by them.

Not true, some states like Georgia guarantee a run-off if a candidate does not get 50% of the vote.

It's the same thing really. had one of them gotten a majority, that individual would have been declare president.

Revelwoodie.......Please, please and please. It is not that difficult to get an ID if your priorities are straight.

Are you Legal ?

Are you not a Felon ?

You are required to change the address within 30-60 days after moving.

College students- (cheaper than a bag of weed)

Minorities- It must be a priority if you wish to have a voice.

You are talking about maybe $15 to $20 .......people spend more than that on beer and cigs for the weekend....give us a break with all the bleeding heart excuses .....If they really want to vote. They will make the very small sacrifice to get the proper documentation....

Revel....

Don't get out much, huh?

Well within the memory of many people, and recorded in some history books, is the fact France was ruined by the Nazis as they took over and held it captive. A few years later, after freuqent bombings of its industry and ports, the Allies ruined it again while kicking the Nazis out. The French have known distruction and poverty worse than anyone who has lived here all their sheltered lives. Look it up.

More to the point: The French could be living in the third generation of poverty after the war, but THEY ARE NOT. They got over their experience in the war, got on with their lives, and made the country prosper. Voter ID is required and over 80% voted in this primary. And it was only a primary election! I don't see too much supression in that.

revel,,, no excuses

In South America also to be exact in Peru a poor country , where I spend a few years working, they are required to have a national ID card ,not necessary a driver license because most people use public transportation , and by law they are required to show their ID and ink their finger with indelible ink to prevent voter fraud. Nobody complaint about vote discrimination, for them is even worst , it is mandatory to vote otherwise they are fined.

Pacos....agreed those who do not vote have either lost their privilege or are just lazy

Wow, guys - a lot of venom out there for the "lazy" poor people. First of all, Pacosperson, I never said French people had NEVER known poverty. I said they don't have poverty NOW anything like what we have in America. And as far as France building their prosperity after WWII based on some imagined super-unlaziness, I have two things to point out.

1) The Marshall Plan.

2) One of the best social safety nets in the world, brought to them by freely elected democratic socialist leaders.

And again, what works in other countries does not necessarily work here. Peru, for example - smaller country. Probably a better public transportation system than ours, too. Try going to the DMV in America one day WITHOUT a car. If there even is a way to get there via public transportation, it will probably take 4 hours and 6 transfers.

All this "people are required to update their address" stuff may be true, but that's just not the way it works in the real world. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes, at least in your mind. If you can't do that, at least try to have a little sympathy. So you don't like the urban poor. You think they're just lazy, or whatever. Fine. That means they can't vote? That means they get less rights than you?

The fact is that these laws produce an older, whiter, more affluent electorate. An electorate more likely to vote for Republicans. So maybe you really need to examine your motives for supporting these laws. Is it some genuine sense of moral outrage about the supposed laziness of people you've never even met and know nothing about? Or is it because it advances your own political candidates?

Look, everyone wants their own party to win elections. Me, too. But NEVER at the cost of other people's rights.

Revelwoodie ......My parents escaped from Communist Cuba ....Why do you think the left? Because their rights were stripped from them. While my father loved his country ....he knew that he no longer had any control over his life or the lives of his children.....that he was doomed to be mediocre at best. People in this country have rights and opportunity. What they choose to do with them is a different story. With all it's faults .....I thank my father everyday (may he rest in peace) for leaving the tyranny and oppression behind him and coming to the greatest country on the planet. We still have choices .....choices others have lost through the experiment of socialism. I'm sorry I cannot subscribe to even parts of it .....EVER . It's not venom .....It's heartfelt.... From watching and listening to someone who lost their country....Their homeland .

voter ID could and can be a solution. i.e. culture and society is capable of change even though some resist it much more than others. so ask yourself why all the resistance. the argument against voter ID would affect about the same people as those that try to cheat the system. so ask yourself why all the resistance.

Revelwoodie - When was the last time you heard of an 80% turnout in this country? Either voting just isn't that important to a large part of our population anymore or they realize that our elections have become so manipulated that their vote really doesn't count for much and the candidate the power brokers want in will get in, like it or not.

As far as why poor people are less likely to have ID, what you offered were excuses, not reasons. You can't write a check, rent a car, board a plane, pick up a prescription at the drug store or check out a library book without ID. The poor have every bit as much access to picture ID as anyone else.

Pugface - Poor people do not write checks, rent cars, fly in planes or check out library books. And no, you do not need ID to get a prescription filled.

But anyway, yes - I agree with you. People in this country don't care too much about voting. Which is why all you have to do to STOP people from voting is make it just the tiniest bit harder. I mean really, ask yourself honestly: If in order to vote this fall you found out you had to take a day off work and ride 4 buses to the county seat to get a special ID, would you do it? Maybe you would. I would. But most people will just say, "screw it."

So yes, Voter ID laws do not prevent people from voting. But they do discourage it. And they discourage voting in the portion of the constituency that favors one particular Party. Which means this stuff should be HANDS OFF, obviously. We can't allow people to game the law for partisan political purposes. It's just plain wrong.

If you can afford an iPhone and its bill, you can afford to register to vote.

I remember back when I was younger, I worked in loss prevention and I'd bust people all the time for stealing and they'd say things like, "Oh, I didn't have the money to pay for XYZ." Then, when I'd have them empty out their pockets, out came the smart phone. lol

But anywho, back to the subject of France. France is a weird place that is a bizarre amalgamation of very liberal things and very conservative things. In fact, neither the US Republican Party or the Democratic Party would find much in common with the French, as it is a unique combination of both's personalities. Very socialistic programs, but also very strict immigration laws. Not being afraid of the c-word (communism) but also not allowing Muslim women to wear head coverings.

It's just a funny place. haha Food and wine is great, though!

yes. Go. and take Obama with you on your way out.

That's not entirely true. The Euro has prompted solid and helpful reforms in many countries, and stabilized several otherwise unfavorable currencies. The unemployment issue is due to European labor laws.

As for losing "sovereignty" to elites, that's the express intent of the paternalistic state that socialists endorse. The only difference between national paternalism and European paternalism is the size of the nanny state and its grinding bureaucracy.

Amen Objective...well stated. Let's hope that every true Frenchman will rally behind LePen and voice thier anger and disgust at the damage to a beautiful country done by muslims. This hate filled culture disguised as a religion is the single worst plague ever to strike France and it will only worsen until France changes immigration policies and finds a way to rid itself of this immigrant problem. Of course a good beginning would be to admit gross errors in admitting all these muslims whose only goal is to impose thier cruel, hate filled religious laws on the populace. Listen to LePen....

What, you don't think the poor, unskilled immigrants don't appreciate it? If laws have to favor one class or the other, why the middle class rather than the poor?

They see themselves as the new aristocracy ruling over a nation of debt-slave immigrants. It won't work The immigrants are not that stupid. Population always wins.

People have been that stupid ....they don't learn from the past . The ones who are flirting with Marxism are the youth who have not seen it first hand. They see it as chic or cool........These are the same kids wearing the little green hats and Che Guevara T-shirts .......When they see it and feel it the will know how wrong they were .

Instead of that, why don't you go discover why the Electoral College exists?

Instead of that, why don't you go discover why the Electoral College exists?

I'm very aware of why it exists and understand it's necessity back in the day. But we're living in the 21st century now... we don't need electors and tellers, or the possibility of the House & Senate deciding who becomes President & VP if one ticket doesn't receive 270 electoral votes. We also don't need a repeat of the 2000 election, where the majority of people voted one way but the other side still won the election.

I find less wrong with our electoral process than I do our two-party system that erects nearly impenetrable barriers for new parties. The only way a Libertarian can get any attention at all is to run as a Republican (sound familiar?).

I find less wrong with our electoral process than I do our two-party system that erects nearly impenetrable barriers for new parties. The only way a Libertarian can get any attention at all is to run as a Republican (sound familiar?).

Look at what just happened in France. The top three candidates, from three different political parties, got 28.63%, 27.18% and 17.90% of the vote. That 17.90% is a respectable showing, all things considered, and at least people there had 10 different candidates to choose from. That's never going to happen over here so long as we keep our antiquated election process in place which favors a two party system.

bobaboey - Your explanation of why the electoral college exists shows me very plainly that you have absolutely NO idea why it was created. May I suggest you do some study on Federalism, sovereign states, states rights, etc. There is a good reason that "back in the day" we were the united (small 'u') States of America.

For those who must have little pictures of hamburgers on their cash register keys, The World Series analogy works best. Why do we determine the winner by who wins the most games instead of who scores the most total runs in seven games? Simple, right? Each game stands on its own. Just as each sovereign state votes for its president standing alone. Not a difficult, is it?

Yes, I do understand how the Electoral College sort of balances things out and gives states with smaller populations more voting power in a Presidential election. However, I feel in a national election that the overall voting power of all the people should trump states rights.

Oh, and I hope your name doesn't actually describe how you look because you don't seem to have much to fall back on personality-wise!

Good. Muslims are very smart and nice.

I've seen little evidence that Muslim voters have caused a problem in Western countries. As long as they don't make up the entire population, Sharia law is impossible to establish. There are problems with Muslim immigration, but their voting bloc isn't one of them.

The French are looking to elect a politician with no leadership experience, and one who wants to grow government to grow the economy. Wow that sounds familiar. Obama said the same thing and then he grew the deficit by almost $6 trillion in under 4 years. Good luck France. If elected French will sound very similar to Greek and sooner than you imagined.

Not only are they just as stupid, they're far more popular!

I do find it strange how fearful they seem of their Muslim population, given how large it is. One would think the politicians would be afraid of offending so many voters.

Certainly he must know the best candidate...Obama is the smartest Muslim there is right!??!

exactly. Don't vote for Le Pen because she wants to create an actual immigration solution. how ridiculous. but unfortunately most of those same liberals will get upset at government for not doing enough to stop all the problems with immigration.

Doubt that. Banks know how to run a tight budget. France's government, evidently, does NOT.

It really doesn't matter as long as they are in charge and reap the benefits, including using the country and its army for their own purposes, including colonization and war, staring with Napoleon. No European dictator could field a Boy Scout troop, let alone an army, without the banks OK and financing.

You'll notice that todays article on the Federal Reserve (the Private Bank that owns the US), has no option for discussion. The Federakl Reserve is not up for discussion (including talk shows), you just listen to its pronouncements. Period.

Hipster Nuevo Socialists .....Pining for the poor while they eat baguettes and sip their latte at their favorite outdoor cafe. It's cool to be communist. Until it's real .

How are you going to say that we would certainly be going back to the same rightwing leadership we had with Bush? I dont see that at all with Romney but I guess you have a crystal ball stuck up your ....