±«Óãtv

We need a change in the US, the current system of running for office is just foolish. Claims counter claims, taking votes out of context, the constant assult in print ads, TV, Radio is totally out of hand.

It's not the best person who wins it's the one with the most money in many cases.

In a local race where I know both parties well, the amount of exageration and downright lies is amazing. You can tell by the barrage who has the money.

Your system on the surface seems much better.

The republican party may "give up", but don't expect the race to be over. Don't forget that people voted the repblicans into both the house, the senate, and the white house, which is quite rare in American history. They did so because they believed in the underlying Republican themes (lower taxes, social and economic conservatism, no internaional control of American policy). People aren't just going to turn around and hand everything to the democrats because they are mad at the republicans, because there will be consequences. They will weigh the costs and benefits of each party, and I believe that they will see that Democrats have just as many problems as the Republicans, and not half as many of the benefits.

How charming that the ±«Óãtv's chief radio correspondent in the USA feels happy to reveal deep-seated biases against the US system, including the point of considering "stalinism" a cute detail.

And the regular audience clearly agrees. Big surprise...

No inkling about the drawbacks of the UK (and other European parliamentary) systems: That the candidates are then completely cultivated by and dependent upon a Party apparatus, funded through taxpayer money.

Another result of such funding is a greater number of political parties, with splintered representation and obvious problems stemming from frequent ineffective minority governments.

Politicians are very often in the game for life, and very rarely is anyone held accountable. Independent new faces are most often shut out, and there is no freedom - as in the US - for a candidate to work up support among other community leaders, small business etc. and upset the apparatchiks' applecart.

Freedom of speech is massively violated in the banning of political advertising.

The US system forces the politicians to work very hard to maintain their constituent base, harder than any soft-living European politicans would like to 'suffer' as a requirement of the job.

The US system is vastly preferable in my view.

I think Oscar is in for a huge surprise on November 7, 2006. He has obviously not lived long enough to know about Democratic landslides.

OMG - it's Justin Webb of the American Parade report! I wait for you to come on Radio 4 so I can marvel at your 'reporting'. I didn't realize that you also blog. My cup runneth over.

It's become increasingly clear that the GOP is having to surrender its most endangered seats in the face of growing Democratic momentum, although this is the first time I've heard as many as 12 Republican seats written off by their own campaign committees and the RNC.

I don't see a way for the Republicans to win AZ-08, FL-16, or TX-22. In Arizona, Randy Graf is too extreme on the immigration issue for the 8th district. In Florida and Texas, the resignations of Foley and DeLay respectively have left the GOP with ballot issues which appear almost insurmountable. In Florida, Foley's muddied name will remain on the ballot, while the GOP candidate in Texas must wage a write-in campaign. Particularly tricky given her name is Sekula-Gibbs.

Next to fall to a Democratic wave would be open seat contests in CO-07, IA-01, and NY-24. This alone takes us 40% of the way to a Democratic takeover of the House.

But the bad news for the GOP is that poll after poll confirms that large numbers of seats which haven't been won by the Democrats since 1994 are at least competitive. Take Indiana, for example, where no less than three GOP incumbents in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Districts are all at best level-pegging with their opponents. Or how about Pennsylvania, where Democrats have more than reasonable chances at the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Districts.

Even in the South, the bedrock of President Bush's electoral college victories in 2000 and 2004, the Republicans are in trouble. In North Carolina, Democrats are confident of taking the 11th District, while they have a very fair shot at the 8th as well. In Virginia, the 2nd District looks like a fair Democratic pick-up, while in Florida, Democrats could concievably not only grab Foley's seat, but the 13th and 22nd Districts as well.

Of course, the Democrats won't win half of the seats I've just mentioned. But the fact that they are competitive at all makes me believe that the GOP is indeed giving up on more and more moderate districts. Under these circumstances, perhaps 12 is not an unlikely number! In fact, I think the GOP would be absolutely delighted to hold their losses to that minimum until November the 7th. I think they're going to be disappointed.

Just a quick question for Mr Travers. How many politicians in the US Congress or the Senate are independents operating outside the two major parties? Considering that the victory rate for the incumbent candidate in US elections is around 90% I'm not sure that politicians being "in the game for life" is exclusive to European politics.

I am more than willing to admit that European politics is a snake pit, but the US system isn't exactly without its flaws.

Corbin makes a cogent point. In point of fact, the Democratic Party's probable success could not occur, were the environment limited to political insiders. The Dems' current circumstance - as minority - is due in large part to insider advice and control, and its resurgence is also due in part to success of non-traditional candidates.

And, yes, Oscar will be shocked. Or not, if he's merely portraying a bold facade.

There's been a lot of talk about how the recent parade of scandals is hurting the Republican party. However, conventional wisdom has shifted from Republicans suffer as a group to a smaller subset races are being hit by the scandal (e.g. Foley scandal with Foley's seat, which is almost certainly on that G list, Tom Reynolds' seat in New York, and a few others clearly related to the scandal, or Abramoff and Bob Ney for Ney's seat). The broader difficulty comes down to the war, not anything else. A majority of Americans are against the war, think Bush lied, etc. Iraq is what is sinking the Republicans.

Add to this the rise and rise of the online world for left-leaning politics, and you have a recipe for the coming Dem landslide. A huge number of Republican incumbents are being challenged, who haven't faced a challenger in years. Additionally, a massively improved network of state party infrastructure, spearheaded by the head of the DNC, Howard Dean, creates a more motivated and organized Democratic party. This is the Democratic party that has the ability to field strong challenges for seats like Nebraska's 3rd district or Kansas' 2nd, both considered deep red states.

Lets paint a nice picture of US campaigning..

12 years ago, a bill to provide money to cancer patience is attached to a huge military spending bill. These attachments goes on all the time so as to bypass senate review or to stop other bills from succeeding.

Now, candidate A votes against the military spending bill because it does not provide enough money for the troops.

Years later, with 2 days to go before voting starts, candidate B spends millions of dollars on wall to wall TV advertising saying that candidate A is AGAINST women getting breast cancer treatments. His poll numbers dive and he loses the election. Candidate A is of course not against women or breast cancer treatment. He just happened to vote against it because it was attached to something else.

The above is one of the reasons Bush is President and not McCain.

The one with much more money is always the winner in the US system.

If we Americans had any brains, we would realize that television news is not really news at all, but entertainment product. All networks are owned by larger companies with their own agendas, so that all we are able to see is 'information' that suits them.

Political ads are no different. They are all emotional appeal or demonization, and so they mean exactly nothing.

This will be so until we demand something better. It was in the '80s that Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine (the Equal Time provision), and our political system has been in the toilet ever since.

"The US system is vastly preferable in my view."

When it produces such statesmen as George W. Bush, who can argue? Let's not forget that from the moment they're elected, members of Congress spend more time grubbing for re-election cash than on representing their districts, and that one must either be a millionaire or have recourse to millions in order to run for anything higher up the political ladder than state legislator. There's no real 'blooding' of candidates, a process that hones skills and creates better campaigners and representatives: the path to DC is 'get rich, donate to a party, find a gerrymandered district, run for office'.

As a British expat in the US, I've endured enough 30-second campaign ads in the past four years to last a lifetime. While there's a certain satisfaction that the party of Jack Abramoff is now strapped for cash, too many contests are decided not on the qualities of candidates but the depth of their bank balances.

I can also say with pride that the last politician to receive any cash from me was Martin Bell, whose anti-corruption independent campaign would be unthinkable in American politics. The only thing that comes close is Bernie Sanders' independent candidacy in Vermont, and that's only possible because it's a small state that still likes its politics done door-to-door.

Dear Sam, there is something to be said for a system flexible enough that so many politicians can get under the same umbrella, isn't there?

The main point is that all these polliticians need to go to their base and personally raise funds - which leads to very different results than in Europe where they primarily answer to the institution/bureaucracy of their party committees - Which of those alternatives sounds more truly representative? The US one I would say!

Don't expect this withdrawl of cash from some seats as an admission that the Republicans will lose. Expect the Dems to make some gains, but Karl Rove's prediction of 8-10 seats in Congress is something he is confident about - and for a reason. Karl Rove knows that the GOP voter purge efforts in key states will have a massive effect on the results of these elctions. A lot of Dems supporters will turn up to vote on Nov 7th and find out they can only vote provisionally or not at all.

Dear Corbin, thanks for responding.

I admit that personal fundraising does make politicians more independent of central party authority. But I'm not sure how many US politicians are actually all that responsive to their supposed bases.

For example the collection of social conservative/religious groups that are generally referred to as the Religious Right have been supporting Republicans for the last few decades. However from what I can see they don't seem to get all that much for providing their votes and money. Republican politicians will make a nod in their direction when election year rolls around but in terms of actual policy they are ignored to a surprising extent.

You can see equivalent abuses on the Democratic side of things, its pretty much universal in politics. I suppose my point is that even if US politicians do have to listen to their bases, they don't necessarily do anything about it any more than the ones over here do.

I had to return here and offer my apologies to the ±«Óãtv's Chief North America Radio Correspondent.

Of course, if you carefully read between the lines, he was actually writing in sympathy with the republican candidates - those who were allegedly going to suffer lack of party funding in the election run-up.

In fairness to the CNARP, I think that is the first time I've ever encountered a ±«Óãtv segment of any kind favorably inclined to Republicans.

Thank you for that.

And just contrast it to this hatchet job today, where the amazing Steve Schifferes, ±«Óãtv News economics reporter, graces us with his analysis of the world's most thriving economy in terms of size and prolonged growth (I'll have to shorten this in the interests of space):

"...slowing after two years...in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll...twice as many voters expect the economy to get worse as predict it will get better...a distinct downturn...Adding to the gloom...the dramatic slowdown...The slump has been driven...many Americans are fed up...17% say they do not have enough...the calm before the storm... unsustainable...unease and disillusionment... dismay... disillusionment...Fears and protectionism...painful adjustments ...major devaluation of the US dollar...boost inflationary pressures and slow down the economy further...deteriorating current account and budget deficit...

A favorite work routine of european correspondents in the USA is evidently to read the New York Times, consider that a absolutely unbiased baseline, and then add on to it their own European social democratic twists and analysis. Presto; one had full blown politically correct distortion.

What will they write whenever the economy really is in bad shape? It will be a challenge!

Please God, send us the British System. The candidates are spending WAY too much money.

Of course, if we Voters weren't such complete idiots, this wouldn't matter... But there you go!

The reasons that many Americans elected the Republican party are many and varied. Some wanted lower taxes, fiscally conservative policies, a better moral climate.

What they got however was higher state and local taxes (to offset the reduction in federal funding), an unbelievable borrow and spend program that has left us more in debt than ever before, and a moral climate of graft, corruption, and outright theft (Abramoff, Enron), to say nothing of questionable sexual morals.
In addition, the Republicans have brought us a war that costs billions, left some 15 000 wounded or maimed young US people, 2700+ dead, and a reputation for torturing prisoners. They have also brought devastation and the death of over 600 thousand people in Iraq.

The US Census Bureau states that 46.6 million Americans (including 8.3 million children) are now without health insurance. Social mobility, especially through education (the average cost of a 2-year college is $10 500), has become a thing of the past.
I think any conservative with sense will be able to tell that the Republicans are not conservative, no matter what lies they tell.

My question is: why would the Democrats want to clean up after a parade of elephants?