On 4 July 1776, the Continental Congress of thirteen American colonies declared that they were independent sovereign states and no longer part of the British Empire as they no longer wished to be ruled by an individual whose only claim as Head of State was that they were related to someone who had served in the role previously.
Instead, it appears that the American public will get to choose between a Clinton and a Bush.
Who do you think will run? And who do you think will win? Do you care? Should you care?
2
Comments
The personality cult infected American politics long ago. Looking good will be as important as what is said.
I have no idea of the outcome but I will follow it very closely and with great interest.
Over to you Fiissh
This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.
This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.
(This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).
Bush is obviously the favourite, so they'll all try to take him down early, but with Rubio, Huckabee, Santorum, Cruz and jokers like Trump and Perry declared, with Jindal and Christie likely to come in, it's going to be entertaining for political nerds like me (us?).
President Obama maintains that the primary race with Hillary in 2008 made him a stronger candidate and better President, and it was harder than the actual election race against McCain. I can see the Republican race going the same way, and Hillary needs to be careful that she isn't out of practice when she's directly up against her opponent, who will be debate-hardened by then. I have a feeling it won't be Bush though.
Looking forward to it.
remember that Congress is a bicameral legislature .. The Senate and the House of Representatives .. more reminiscent of the House of Commons AND the House of Lords
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm
Old Grover Cleveland was a bit of a control freak by the looks of things!! Although seemed to tone it down a bit in his second term!!
"In times of emergency" is a different thing, likely a recognized national threat such as an attack or maybe an epidemic. The President can make a decision without approval.
An executive order is not supposed to be used to by-pass the normal legislative process.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Of course , if there is a Republican in the WH, the Dems complain that he is using EOs unconstitutionally and vice versa.
Anyway if we were voting for head of state (The Queen vs Miliband or Cameron) I am absolutely certain it would be a royal landslide.
Those who got fed up with the length and quality of the UK election campaign should think very carefully about whether they would prefer the US system which seems truly interminable and lacking in quality policy analysis from this side of the pond!
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.