Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Condor who wrote (2351)	11/5/2002 10:23:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 6901

On the surface it appears rather a complicated approach but seems to assure more co-operation within the parties as compared to our parliamentary system. I believe our system is more confrontational and winner takes all. Problems arise here when clear majorities aren't elected. Ineffectual government results. Same here. In fact, things are getting steadily more polarized here and since the Congress is split almost exactly 50-50, the last Congress spent a lot of time in gridlock. But people seem to prefer it that way; keeps either party from doing too much harm. So far tonight it seems to be a good night for the Republicans, and that is remarkable, because the party in power always loses seats in the first midterm election, especially in a tough economy. I think the old saying, 'you can't beat somebody with nobody' is applicable, or in this case, 'you can't beat something with nothing' -- the Democrats never got traction on any issue. On one of the biggest issues, Iraq, they ran scared, mostly supporting but looking very scared and me-too about it. On the economy and health-care, which should have been Democratic issues, the Republicans were able to obfuscate by coming up with their own bills (a classic Clinton ploy; the Republicans may have hated him but they are not above learning from him).