Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumThom Hartmann: The Republicans Didn't Really Win the Senate
The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 7pm and 10pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 1758 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thom Hartmann: The Republicans Didn't Really Win the Senate (Original Post)
thomhartmann
Jan 2015
OP
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)1. Well sure...
... if we change the definition of victory to something other than the real one.
Does that make us feel better?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)2. Has Hartmann of RT ever mentioned who else didn't really win the election?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2012/03/russian_prime_minister_vladimir_putin_has_rigged_the_country_s_elections_to_guarantee_he_will_win.html
If you are wondering which of the candidates opposing Vladimir Putin on Sunday is a stooge, rest assured: They all are.
By Masha Gessen
On March 4, I expect the Russian consulate in Washington, D.C., to be crowded with Russian citizens coming to cast their votes in the presidential election. Voting has become a surprisingly popular pastime among Russians of late, and the consulate will probably see a record number of visitors on Sunday. I'll be one of them because I am in the United States promoting The Man Without a Face, my biography of Putin, the prime minister and certain victor of this weeks election.
The ballot Ill be issued will be identical to the ones used in Russia. In fact, with five candidates, including four party nominees and an independent, it will look much like a ballot in any democratic country with a multiparty system. But what it actually represents is the systematicand successfuldismantling of Russian democratic institutions begun a dozen years ago.
Within days of taking office as president in May 2000, Vladimir Putin issued his first decree and introduced a bill in parliament aimed at undoing the fragile mechanisms of democracy. To begin, he made the country's 89 elected governors accountable to presidential envoys (most of them former KGB officers) whom he appointed to supervise seven newly created districts of the country. The bill did away with elections for members of the upper house of parliament; instead, they would now be appointed by governors and regional legislatures. A year later, a new law, also initiated by Putin, recast the procedure for forming political parties. The requirements were made so arduous that in effect no party can be registered unless the Kremlin wants it to be registered.
In 2003, in anticipation of Putin's first re-election bid, similar barriers were created for presidential candidates. In 2004, Putin abolished gubernatorial elections altogethergovernors are appointed by the presidentand canceled direct elections to the lower house of parliament, whose members are now chosen by voting for political parties. (As a result, most regions are represented by people who have never lived there.) Finally, in 2007, Putin introduced even more onerous restrictions to entering the presidential raceand the following year his hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, pushed through a constitutional reform that increased the president's term of office from four to six years, opening the possibility that Putin could serve in that position for another 12 years.
By Masha Gessen
On March 4, I expect the Russian consulate in Washington, D.C., to be crowded with Russian citizens coming to cast their votes in the presidential election. Voting has become a surprisingly popular pastime among Russians of late, and the consulate will probably see a record number of visitors on Sunday. I'll be one of them because I am in the United States promoting The Man Without a Face, my biography of Putin, the prime minister and certain victor of this weeks election.
The ballot Ill be issued will be identical to the ones used in Russia. In fact, with five candidates, including four party nominees and an independent, it will look much like a ballot in any democratic country with a multiparty system. But what it actually represents is the systematicand successfuldismantling of Russian democratic institutions begun a dozen years ago.
Within days of taking office as president in May 2000, Vladimir Putin issued his first decree and introduced a bill in parliament aimed at undoing the fragile mechanisms of democracy. To begin, he made the country's 89 elected governors accountable to presidential envoys (most of them former KGB officers) whom he appointed to supervise seven newly created districts of the country. The bill did away with elections for members of the upper house of parliament; instead, they would now be appointed by governors and regional legislatures. A year later, a new law, also initiated by Putin, recast the procedure for forming political parties. The requirements were made so arduous that in effect no party can be registered unless the Kremlin wants it to be registered.
In 2003, in anticipation of Putin's first re-election bid, similar barriers were created for presidential candidates. In 2004, Putin abolished gubernatorial elections altogethergovernors are appointed by the presidentand canceled direct elections to the lower house of parliament, whose members are now chosen by voting for political parties. (As a result, most regions are represented by people who have never lived there.) Finally, in 2007, Putin introduced even more onerous restrictions to entering the presidential raceand the following year his hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, pushed through a constitutional reform that increased the president's term of office from four to six years, opening the possibility that Putin could serve in that position for another 12 years.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)3. Ok, that's just dumb.
As far as I'm concerned it's a good design. One body of congress gives all of the states equal representation.
Abolish the senate. No.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)4. Don't abolish the Senate.
Make the Senate proportional as the house is.
All the other bi-cameral legislatures have proportionate upper chambers.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)8. Here here! I agree.
jmowreader
(50,530 posts)6. And Wendell Willkie didn't really lose the 1940 election...
Overseas
(12,121 posts)7. K&R. Loved his pointing out that 20 million more people voted for Democrats in the last election.
That dinky states get two senators just like huge states and it makes our country seem more Republican than it is.
I hope we can do something about more proportional representation.
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)9. kickski