Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Crowdsourcing To Vote Palin In Primaries
SharpieMarker writes "In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever, Democrats are beginning to organize to purposely vote for Palin in the 2012 Republican primaries. Their theory is by having Palin as an opponent, Obama will have the best odds at winning reelection. Recent polls have shown that Obama comfortably leads Palin by 10-20 points, but Obama is statistically tied with Romney and barely ahead of Huckabee. They even have a state-by-state primary voting guide to help Democrats navigate various states' rules for voting Palin in Republican primaries."
I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.
Does it really matter? It's a one party system.
What could possibly go wrong?
I thought it was rather embarrassing for the republicans when they tried these tactics against Obama. It saddens me that apparently some democrats are sinking to their level. Really, I can't imagine this being successful anyway.
And this is why we can't have nice things. Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.
That could *SO* backfire horribly.
I have no ties to either political party (can't stand either of them), but the phrase "President Palin" makes my skin crawl.
Politicians care more about getting themselves elected than they do about the welfare of our country.
Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.
Um, I have bad news for you...
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
This is dangerous. Jimmy Carter wanted to run against Ronald Reagan - 1 to 2 years out he was seen as the easiest to beat. Alas, didn't turn out that way.
And what happens if Palin gets elected? Can we shoot every one of these crowdsourcing participants for treason?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
If this is true, it's a sad day for the Democratic Party. Anyone (from any party) who supports this type of behavior is just morally bankrupt.
... is that elections are largely driven by economic fundamentals and (to some degree) random chance. Meaning, there's a non-trivial probability that Palin might beat Obama. I'm not trying to be an ass about Palin, because I'm sure she's a nice person in the right context, but she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate. She doesn't appear to have taken the lessons offered by the '08 election in terms of becoming more informed or dedicated --- all she seems to have learned is that she can get traction by attacking anything remotely related to the left wing. That's great for a pundit, not so great for the President of a large country.
In the long run a Palin presidency would be a disaster for Democrats and Republicans, not to mention Americans in general. These people shouldn't flirt with disaster.
She were to win the primary and then pull ahead in the polls?
The Nazis decided that if their plans weren't realistic, reality would have to budge.
Not saying (not even implying, hi there FoxNews) that Palin's a Nazi, will create a totalitarian state of some kind or other. I am saying that candidate Palin could become president Palin and Democrats would have noone but themselves to blame.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
1) The Centrists vote right in the national election and Palin fucks us worse than W or Obama ever did, or
2) The Right starts their own campaign to nominate unelectable Dems - then we'd truly be choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich.
I sympathize with the cause, but question the method.
This is a bad idea. Karl Rove's strategy has proved that you can win elections by motivating your base rather than having broad appeal. If Palin gets the nomination and right around the election we wind up with a double dip recession and Afghanistan gets even worse, it isn't unrealistic that she could win.
One of the changes this country seriously needs is a move to more open primaries. As it stands now, party politics are mostly driven by the extreme base, and sensible people who want the best of both worlds (or, heaven forbid, three or four worlds!) are left behind. Open primaries allow everyone to pick the candidates they would indeed most like to see win.
But idiots who want to game the system by registering as Democrat/Republican to vote for the opposing side's least-winnable candidate are why we can't have a more open primary system, and only fuel the brutally and falsely partisan political discourse. This sort of tactic is, in a word, disgusting, and in two words, outright shameful.
Best case scenario - The guy you wanted to win does, despite your wasted efforts/money before the primary
Worst case scenario - Your campaign works and she wins. NOW WHAT?!
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Politicians are really the scum of the earth. This is one of the biggest flaws with our political system. Electioneering has gone horribly wrong here.
See subject.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Why should the public pay for party primaries? If the parties don't want 5 (or 10...) people running, they should control and pay for their own internal selection process. There's no good reason to ask the public to pay for their internal politics. That would also eliminate the issue brought up here, which can work both ways.
Better yet, adopt a preferential voting system.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I am sure it's a foolproof plan. Palin could never get elected if this plan comes to fruition.
That the best way to insure the success of your dirty tricks campaign is to broadcast it loudly and publicly so everyone knows, especially the party you are pulling your shenanigans against. If anything if this campaign does gain traction, the likely outcome is that public votes for Palin will be tossed and Republicans will resort to an election by delegates only, which will completely eradicate these efforts and deny the common citizens their illusion of democracy.
Please, do some research and vote third party (if you find it appropriate with your views). Don't just play games.
This group is proud to call itself liberal, but their entire purpose is to subvert the democratic process. Additionally, negative comments about the organization's purposes are removed from their comment system (more rightly, never make it through moderation). So if this group is against democracy and free speech then I am left to wonder how they define 'liberal'.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I was being sarcastic!
really, goobs? i thought this was real life, not reality television. whatever, dems hardly vote in real elections much less primaries, mitt will win and this country will finally be back on track again. not that much will be left for him to work with....the budget is worse than ever and the change dudes will have scrapped all the spare change by then
From a democrat perspective, she's unlikely to win, but there's no guarantee that's the case. Not to mention that when both sides start trying to get the worst of the other party to get elected, we guarantee ourselves a choice between the worst possible candidates.
That said, if Palin's team came up with this, it's a brilliant campaign strategy for her. Hopefully people aren't stupid enough to vote for her, whatever the motivations of the organizers.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I personally hope someone runs and beats Obama in the primaries, but, assuming Obama wins that or is unchallenged, who the hell would vote for that hick dim bulb of a crackpot over him? The problem isn't he did a bad job, the problems are a) he turned out to be milquetoast when it came to arguing for his points b) he is (a terrible negotiator | complicit with the corporations | an idiot) and his supporters saw right through him. He can take the high ground. He can easily win on his principles alone (assuming he has and believes in them) and doesn't have to resort to this kind of immature Limbaugh-style attempt at vote manipulation.
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
Jimmy Carter lost because he was a bad president and when the people reacted predictably to his incompetence, he went on TV to tell us we had a malaise.
Fortunately, he had a brother who was a lot smarter than him.
The spirit of the primaries is that a small group of partisan loyalists will pick a candidate that they all promise to support at the national election. So rather than having a real choice, you get a coin toss.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Just because the likes of Limbaugh and the dittoheads thought this was a good idea doesn't mean that it is,
In fact, it should tell them that it's exactly the opposite.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It not only violates the spirit, it also violate the law (at least in some states). Chance of actual serving criminal penalties is minimal though.
Seems like a terribly bad idea to me. (1) It corrupts the US election process, because that's not how it was supposed to work. (2) It legitimizes non-democratic measures to counter this. (3) It increases the odds that Sara Palin becomes President. On the plus side, it does show a rather touching confidence in the common sense of the US voter (that, sadly, I cannot share).
As a european my most direct concern is (3), because having an airhead as the leader of a large and powerful nation is bad for the whole world, but (1) and (2) are painful to watch too. To use a car analogy: of course my neighbor is free to use a sledgehammer on his own car, but it's still painful to watch.
'process' has gone away looong ago. in a perverse system, the only way you can achieve a straight result, unfortunately happens to be through perverse methods.
Read radical news here
They already do that to some extent. The party elites choose who they'll even allow to run under their party's banner, then we're allowed the illusion of choice during the primaries.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
President Palin.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Other countries have a process where candidates are chosen by party members only (which you have to pay to do), and it seems to work fine. There's no need for an open free for all like this unless you want to invite people to screw with it.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
what should embarrass you is that, a party is having to sink into that level, because the other was not only filthy enough to sink to that level, but was also allowed to. leaving the other with no choice but to do the same, or get into disadvantage.
really. i think there is no straight working thing left in american system at this point. all became either rotten to the core of betraying the founding principles or broken to the point of betraying them.
Read radical news here
Fortunately, the delegates to the convention are not (always) required to vote for the candidate who garners the most votes in their primaries. They don't have to take the candidates that the other party foists upon them. They can use their own judgment, and hopefully they will.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Look around you, boy! What country do you think you're living in?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Vote Ron Paul - join the revolution!
There won't be anyone left to shoot. Palin in the White House would result in World War III and the death of humanity.
Ahh, Mayans - so this is how the world ends.
This never works.
Besides, it looks like the goal is to keep an unpopular president in office. How is this good for the nation?
I think it would be better to lobby for the choice "None of the above". Given an Obama vs Palin slate, that is how I would like to vote.
Proverbs 21:19
You people actually think it will make a damn bit of difference? Don't delude yourselves, and don't confuse the office of the presidency with the person who occupies it. One has nothing to do with the other.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries. This means independents, most Americans, will have even less say in who our leaders are.
The 20% of the population who are hardcore partisan douchebags like these make me sick. What we need is a process that let's the other 80% of the population - most of who are so disgusted by this that they don't even vote - have more say, not less.
If she is dumb enough to run she'd be risking her celebrity, not to mention giving up millions of dollars and the ability to shape the direction of the party while doing it.
Democrats aren't going to be that lucky. While I am a firm believer that both parties are basically the same power hungry corporate tools once they get in office at least make the campaign interesting. I think he'd win vs Palin handily, like most people, but obviously he is weak if democrats are scared of anyone else presenting their ideas to the American public. Lets see what Obama has to say/promise this time around without it just being "Well I'm not an idiot Alaskan hockey Mom." Lets at least hear from Romney, et al. on what they think they could do better.
Why was this approved for Slashdot? This is not news. This is some lame attempt to drag democrats in the mud when there is clearly no democratic party member that is behind this website.
This is someone's successful attempt at site promotion. How did the mods sleep on this or should I be expecting more articles on Slashdot that have no references to actual news?
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
It's already been done successfully in South Carolina by the Republicans, and I suspect that this type of voting will just escalate. Hopefully this means that primaries will soon be replaced by a general free for all. Added bonus: it will reduce the value of being in the party structure when running for political positions.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
What is needed is a better voting system. Like somehow being able to vote for 'yes' or 'no' for every candidate, for instance. So not only we give more power to the good ones, but we weed out the bad ones. The way the current system works does not favor changes, no matter the opinion of the people. It is a giant political gridlock.
They may end up making the the worst mistake in US history. Do not underestimate Palin. If you do not want her as your president, stay the heck out of voting her for anything. If you disagree, think for a second how did she manage to be governor of a state and be at the center of the political attention of the entire country for months. Do not vote her.
I was thinking the same thing. I figure the odds between a group of malicious republicans and a group of stupid democrats being 50/50. Since my own mother - whose been an environmentalist and green partier for decades - is slowly being brainwashed by fox news, nothing surprises me anymore.
I don't understand the concern. This is almost exactly what happened in Delaware this past election. A crazy won, and the democrat, who might've otherwise lost, ended up winning by a landslide. The main difference is that it's the democrats initiating the process rather than letting it happen organically.
What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
And let us vote None of the Above. If None of the Above wins, a do-over is called and the parties need to come back with candidates who aren't hacks.
Yea, Obama has a snowball's chance in hell of winning against anybody. Good one.
I think there are much more qualified candidates than Palin, but I get tired of those who attack her intellect or credentials based on standards that would very quickly sink President Obama or VP Biden. Yes, Palin has made dumb statements in unscripted interviews. But there is a reason Pres. Obama uses a teleprompter all the time -- without it he stutters and stumbles and basically goes incoherent. Joe Biden doesn't go incoherent -- he actually goes all Huckleberry Finn on you, which embarrasses everybody in a different way in the post-interview analysis.
Sarah Palin is not dumb. She is reasonably smart and articulate, and might do an OK job as President, if she does like all good Presidents in history have done and let teams of smarter people do analysis work for her.
If she wanted to get elected and last more than one term, she would have to drop and/or repudiate some of her fringe baggage, just like Obama did (Rev. Wright, anyone?). Point is, it could happen, and it actually wouldn't be the end of the world.
Since we already have come to see that Obama is essentially another President Bush, who for some reason isn't allowed to run as a Republican, I guess someone thought they'd try to beat the Republicans instead. However, selecting a Republican who has almost no legislative credentials as a hard-core conservative could backfire; Palin could end up as the liberal in the contest in comparison to Obama's continuous march to the right as president.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This could all backfire and we could have Palin as president.. I really don't want to have to move to Canada or Costa Rica...
We should have to vote for every candidate on a scale of 1-5 or so, with 1 being "Hell no" and 5 being highest support. Throw parties right out the window. Candidate with the highest average gets to be president, 2nd highest average is vice president. Yes, there are a number of things that can go wrong with this system, but the idea is to get leadership everyone can at least deal with.
Kill yourself.
The spirit of the primaries is to have the states subsidize the nomination process for the Democrats and Republicans to the exclusion of the 3rd parties. If this violates the spirit of the primaries, I'm all for it. The primaries aren't even needed anymore. There are better and more reliable ways to select a candidate. Instead, it's done for political reasons that are not in the best interests of the people.
Learn to love Alaska
This is a terrible strategy. If they really want to guarantee a win, they should vote for Ron Paul in the republican primaries (or the libertarian type candidate that emerges with his blessing).
Not only does he have zero chance of winning, he would be blacked out and ignored by the media even if he won the primary, and if he did win your worst side effect would be liberty for all.
Liberty.
This should be modded Insightful.
Because I want a Democrat to win. It's time to have a real Democrat primary Obama.
Obama is a complete disaster. Just like his failed economic team, he's a academia type, that's never experienced the real world, and is basing his decisions (and life) on theories that have failed every time they've been tried in history. Christina Romer is another great example. Never left her academia world, dives into government policy, creates the largest government expenditure in history, and the economy got worse. Then she heads back to college to teach the future liberal robots. Unbelievable these people have any credibility with people. I could give to craps that Palin didn't attend an ivy league school. If she knows how to balance a budget and make people get off their butt's and support themselves rather than depend on the government, I'm all for her.
in the Democratic primaries? Hillary Clinton? Jerry Brown?
Could get interesting...
The 20% of the population who are hardcore partisan douchebags like these make me sick. What we need is a process that let's the other 80% of the population [...]
While the numbers fluctuate from year to year, the percentage of the population that isn't aligned with one of the major parties is around 30%. What they have in common with the two partisan factions is that they all like to make up numbers claiming that they're the majority. If any of them really were, we'd have presidential elections with much wider margins than the 1-5% we've seen in recent elections.
And while the parties are undeniably jealous of their power and work to crush third-party opposition, the two-party system is a direct consequence of direct, first-past-the-post elections in a presidential democracy. If you want more choices, you need to push for a parliamentary democracy, not beat your head against the brick wall of independent and third party candidates.
And not that I wouldn't be entirely in favor of having a modern parliamentary system here, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
What's the difference between one individual registering with the Republican Party and voting in the Republican Primary and another individual doing the same thing?
Somehow, one is a criminal and the other not?
Good luck getting that person's ballot into a jury's hands for a criminal trial.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
What we need is a process that let's the other 80% of the population - most of who are so disgusted by this that they don't even vote - have more say, not less.
We already DO, it's called "voting". If everyone who didn't vote DID, "independents" would easily be able to win elections. The only reason there is a 2 party system is because only the hardcore partisans are the ones who reliably vote.
If they don't think Obama can win, maybe they should run someone else.
My fear is that she will actually win the election. I get the impression that to a lot of conservatives she represents the anti-Obama. She represents "change" from the Republican perspective and being female her election would be considered a milestone.
There also seems to be this trend in American politics where the president takes the blame for EVERYTHING negative and the opposing party seems to make it their mission to oppose everything they do. It certainly happened with Bush, and it's happening now with Obama.
And American politics seems to adore a polarizing president. It gives everyone a sense of righteous indignation. If anything, Palin would be the perfect president for this kind of political climate. Even if she managed to be competent, which I don't think is very likely, she'd never get the credit for it.
Some states have closed primaries in which you have to be registered to that party in order to vote in the primary. Might be an interesting conversation to see the democratic leaders registering as Republicans so they can vote for Palin or Elmer Fudd...
There was a lot of noise about this during the Obama-Clinton primaries, with Limbaugh calling on conservatives to help Clinton in order to prolong the primaries.
Didn't make much difference until Indiana, which was the only one (aside from Iowa and New Hampshire) that really shocked anybody due to Obama outperforming in a state while Clinton was perceived to be "syrging". Obama and Clinton continued winning states each was already favored in.
I've no desire to see Caribou Barbie as president, but I doubt Dems trying to sabotage the GOP would have much impact on it.
The Democrats have no direction or unified theory of government, and sell themselves to the highest bidder.
The Republicans have a clearly defined theory of government, but also sell themselves to the highest bidder.
This country is screwed. We are functionally bankrupt, and those of us who can read a budget know that we're headed for an unprecedented economic disaster because neither party has a spine.
All that aside, this story brings to mind a Democratic tactic used in the 5th Congressional District race between D-Harry Mitchell and R-David Schweikert in Arizona this year.
The Arizona Democatic Party actually paid for and mailed thousands of four-color glossy mailers ATTACKING the Obama agenda and urging people to vote for the "true conservative", the Libertarian Candidate in District 5.
Their reasoning was that any votes for the Libertarian would siphon votes from Schweikert. Didn't work.
As a former Democrat who is now a Republican party official, I was absolutely, totally appalled by this. Although I line up with the Republican party, I still have many Democratic friends, and I have great respect for some of the power bases of the Democratic party - namely, the older, slowly dying FDR-style Democrats who religiously send in their little $10 donations to support the party they believe in.
Now, I want the GOP to win. It's good for me, personally, when the Dems do stuff that's really, really stupid. Still, much as I can't stand Obama, it absolutely infuriates me that the Democratic party would squander donated funds in order to not only support the candidate of another party, but also attack their own elected President.
I'll even go so far as to say it broke my heart to imagine the hard-working, poor, or elderly Democratic base giving what little they have in the mistaken belief they were giving it to Democratic leaders they could trust. I understand the strategy - but it's flat out wrong to use Dem funds to attack the President and support a Libertarian. The Democratic Base deserves better than the Democratic leaders. So does the GOP, but that's a whole 'nother story.
It does not matter how you justify your vote for Palin it still constitutes a crime against humanity.
Politics has always been and always be a dirty business. There is no morality in the process.
Either you win or you lose, and how you win or lose never matters.
If you care more about the process than the results, you are the ideologist who is what is wrong with politics.
Honestly I don't care how we make the country better or what the process is, as long as it's non-violent.
You didn't mean Randal Barry Orton? dolt
Isn't it a little early to call something like this "the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing"? Not that it's the end-all metric of popularity, but it has 16 follows so far 25 facebook likes for god's sake. Slow down a bit before you hurt yourself.
Now if both parties end up doing this sort of thing to each other, elections will end up being the worst candidates that neither party really wanted and things would be worse.
I honestly believe that Obama really does have the countries welfare in mind, but that doesn't help when the majorities in the senate and house don't. I wonder what percentage of corrupt politicians it requires to kill a typical bill - especially as divisive as party lines are lately.
This sounds good, but it could result in the majority voting "None of the Above" repeatedly and completely stalling the government for years. Some people would be for this, I guess, but I think most would start to miss the services the federal government provides.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Yes but the average delawarian is a little more sane than the average Alaskan or Texan. Delaware is a swing state and the Republicans and Democrats they elect are moderate. Put Christine O'Donnell in Kansas and she might get her ass elected.
Also remember Palin won in Alaska. The US on the whole is more right leaning than Delaware is on the whole. There are enough nutjobs that think that voting for a Democrat amounts to treason and will even vote in an idiot like Palin to avoid that.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
And in war you win or you are enslaved by the enemy.
The political process is the non-violent way that US Citizens can have a regime change. As long as you follow the law and are non-violent, the spirit and all that nonsense doesn't matter.
Winning is all that matters.
Because your ethics aren't based on winning.
If she were to win the election, that is what I'd predict would happen.
This is why she wont win, or if she does win it will still shake things up.
What I don't know is how the dice will roll. Neither do Republicans, and thats why she wont win.
Will go sharply to the Democrats, else you'll see complete chaos. It's a gamble which will probably pay off.
You can almost be certain congress wont be Republican under Palin.
The President has power but not as much power as you seem to believe.
Fortunately, the delegates to the convention are not (always) required to vote for the candidate who garners the most votes in their primaries. They don't have to take the candidates that the other party foists upon them. They can use their own judgment, and hopefully they will.
In case you missed it, Diebold already is stuffing(or allowing others to) stuff the ballot box. Additionally, the fact that the delegates aren't required to vote the way their districts are is in my opinion another flaw because it results in a much smaller number of people to bribe to ensure the election goes the way the $ wants it to.
Religious bigotry is alive and well, I see...
(Disclaimer: I think that Palin isn't presidential material either..)
I'd vote for Michael Palin!
But isn't he a long-standing member of the Very Silly Party?
...When dems were deciding who to run in '92, in spring Bush I's approval was over 80% from the gulf war, so all the heavy-hitters bowed out, thinking it better that some podunk governor could get beaten badly and they'd all come back for the 'real' election in '96.
-Styopa
Not sure who he was, but it's made me recast these kinds of things in a different light.
...now Australian politicians will copy it. I foresee Labor party branches stacking Barnaby Joyce's electorate...
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Ugh, please no, do not want. As if things aren't confusing enough as it is. The last thing we need is to keep track of whether candidate C is slightly less evil than candidate D who is slightly better than candidate B. Americans have a hard enough time keeping track of two options, giving them more is not going to make for better results.
I remember Rush Limbaugh urging people to vote Hillary on Super Tuesday in the 2008 primaries to keep her in the race. They figured that the internal bickering would be detrimental to the Democrats so they wanted to keep that going as long as they could.
Let her run in the primaries without any democratic support. Most replublicans are smart enough to know that she isn't and never will be presidential material. When she loses the nomination she can run as an independent with the support of the wacko factions of the republican party, spliiting the republican vote and causing obama to win a second term.
Many independents in Arizona bemoan how they can't vote for Dems or GOPers in the primaries, but this kind of movement is exactly why we have closed primaries in this state.
To you Dems who support this kind of ballot box stuffing: What if Obama found a way to screw up for another 2 years or some other unforeseen events screwed him politicially after the primaries, and Palin somehow actually WON the election? Like her or not, Sarah Palin is NOT presidential material. Underneath her everyman's "Drill, Baby, Drill!", one-liners, she's a pretty face with a 100IQ and a reality TV show. (She didn't even have the wisdom to stay away from trash like reality TV - and you want HER making executive decisions on world policy or with ICBM launch codes?
Even the possibility of Dems doing this to the presidency shows just how ignorant, spiteful, partisan, and ultimately short-sighted politics have become. Americans should be putting the best candidates on the ballot in the general election, regardless of allegiances.
I'm fully aware that the power of the President is (supposed to be) limited. I know what checks and balances means. I know the purpose of the three branches of government are to prevent any one branch from getting too powerful.
I still don't want someone as stupid as Palin becoming the US Head of State. Even if the presidency was as limited as it was fifty years ago, she could still do quite a bit of damage, even if just in terms of worldwide perception.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Its actually fairly common for organizations claiming to prefer one major party or the other seeking to influence primaries of the other major party in this way, and for major parties or their supporters to attempt to influence minor parties nominations (both as to who is nominated and whether anyone is nominated by that minor party) as tactical ploys.
Also, note that despite TFS's claims that these are Democrats, there is no source for this information, and the site itself claims only that its anonymous creators are "liberal individuals" who want "Democrats and Independents" to work to nominate Palin.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries.
Closed primaries do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of an organized effort launched two years prior to an election to get people to vote in a particular primary of a particular party, regardless of where there loyalties lie.
It would affect the effectiveness of similar efforts conducted at the last minute, or individuals crossing over based on late polls.
I'm betting that this is actually part of Palin's nefarious plans to win the primary by convincing Democrats to get her on the Republican ticket. I'm not sure what the second half of her evil plans are but I think the big picture looks like this:
1. Get Democrats to assist with primary
2. ???
3. Become President.
Slashdot readers are to politics as....
a. water is to snow
b. sun is to heat
c. barney is to rubble
d. politicians are to technical
The answer is "D".
It cracks me up when Slashdot goes political almost as much as when politicians try and get involved with technical discussion.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
just vote democratic...nuff said...
Then you respect the process way more than it deserves. There's no reason the Republicans (or the Democrats) should have to have primaries at all, and then agree to not run their other candidates in the real election. They only do it because they want to keep all the other parties out, so they've continued to support election systems that encourage voting for only one of two parties. They want to keep the ballots small. This is why there are so few good choices on election day.
If you can pervert the primary process, you will be doing a good thing. The more times Democrats and Republicans lose elections to the other guy, due to having their primaries perverted, or losing votes to 3rd party candidates "splitting" the votes, etc, the more incentive they'll have to allow a shift to better voting systems. Approval or Condorcet voting wouldn't just allow Greens and Libertarians to start winning a few races; it would also let Republicans still have a chance at getting a real candidate win as president in spite of Palin getting an unhealthy level of support, or Gore still having a chance at winning in spite of Nader running. Perverting the process will force the parties to start letting people elect whoever they really want to. That would be good.
Let's work toward a situation where the parties keep seeing elections happen, where if only they had let people vote for who they wanted to win, that party would have won, but instead, they lost. It was GOOD that Bush beat Gore, even though he was obviously going to be a worse president. Let's have crap like that happen in every single election from now on. Make the parties hate their own system.
Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to temporarily switch allegiances and vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primaries with the explicit intent to push the weaker candidate through. And the dems cried foul then. We're supposed to lose honorably, not sink to their level. It's also probably a felony in some states.
It's like the 'Coffee Party' or the 'No Labels' groups.
This will get lots of press for a few weeks (Palin + internet shenanigans = ratings/pageviews) and then fade away because there isn't a real grass roots push to do it.
Also they are about a year too early to affect the primaries.
Palin's not going to run. She's making lots of money, has some political juice and no responsibilities. I bet she really likes not having any responsibilities.
This, I think, would implement a Distributed Denial Of Sanity attack.
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
Really? You must live in a smart part of the country because last time I checked most American's have a tough time keeping track of the one they think they wanted to begin with unless its reality TV then they know all the options.
Retarding democracy -- reducing the choices that will be available on the real ballot a few months later -- is the spirit of primaries. What's so bad about violating that spirit? The more the primary system is abused, the sooner we can get rid of it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So, thank you, Democrats. I look forward to watching you become even more insane after President Palin is sworn in.
she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate
Actually if you read her speeches, she has.
You have just not been allowed to see any of them as the media is trying very hard to paint a specific picture of her.
Even that whole "I can see Russia from my house" thing was never said by her, but by Tina Fey on a SNL skit.
Do not forget that while most visible on the campaign trail she was reigned in by McCain's handlers (who obviously had no idea what to do with her).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Don't forget that the parties we have are in no way things that are really part of the election process, they are just an accepted construct around the process. If a state has an open primary it's open so that anyone can vote for who they like.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This isn't really "news that matters" as something like this might corrupt a primary election in theory, but I seriously doubt many Democrats are going to show up at Republican primaries, or vice versa. And it isn't clear at all that they would want to vote for Palin anyway once they've seen the other goodies available by then.
This is really an old, biperennial issue. People in both parties talk about doing this every two years, as if it's a new idea and nobody's ever thought of voting for a weak candidate in the opposing party's primary. This would be deleterious behavior, if these plans were actually followed through, but people will generally only snark (a lot, loudly) about doing this. It's not a very enticing idea in the first place, won't hold your interest for long before an election, and if you think it through that night, you'll decide you'd rather spend your time with an xbox than members of the opposing party.
Typical Democrat strategy: when you can't win honestly, cheat.
As usual, just my $0.02 worth.
O'Donnel won because the people were sending a message to Republicans they didn't want the kind of person who had been in office. They knew she would probably lose, they didn't care because it achieved a larger goal.
Similarly, attempting to cast more votes for Palin, even if some are fraudulent, sends a message that Palin has momentum and actually might get her elected.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Perhaps Palin will switch to be a Democrat and Republicans will "Crowdsource To Vote Palin In Democratic Primaries" ???
Gotta be careful starting these kind of games...
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Its funny that people can get all riled up over the personality, yet overlook the issues becuase it doesn't suit them.
Obama got every MAJOR piece of legislation he wanted.
Yet we are still in a flat economy. Conclusively you must admit that Obama's policies have failed... and don't get into BS like 'jobs saved'. Job numbers a still at a HUGE net loss, and every job mythically 'saved' cost several times more than what the person's wages/salary was.
So to the Libtards, your guy has no clue.. he enacted his policy and it failed to deliver growth.
Republatards, who do you think you are going to say NO to to cut the spending? The poor? The corporations? The elderly? Whom is going to be the recipient of the cuts that must be done? The libtards have no fiscal sense, and will fight cuts simply on talking points and the desire to get reelected.
Americia's 200 years are just about up. No one is going to make the tough decisions and in my lifetime we will become a Zimbabwe or worse, France.
His circumstances coming in were absolutely horrible but he did some good things, credit card reform, health care reform some good regulations.
and there has been a lot of bad like not punishing the bankers and staying in Afganistan.
This idea is exactly the sort of cynical, presumptive plot that the Right loves to dream up in their smoke-filled rooms. If you still believe in genuine democracy, then be willing to give it a chance to work.
This idea is based on the completely incorrect assumption that the majority of voters will come to their senses when faced with an Obama vs Palin choice. What evidence supports that? You really have no idea how venally and deliberately misinformed the majority of Americans are. One in four believes Obama was born in Kenya, for Christ's sake!
Palin is a horror and cannot be allowed anywhere near a nomination. Believe me, if she is nominated, a great many people will take it as a sign from God and will vote for her against their own logical selves, screaming NOOOO inside them.
I hope they don't succeed. I'd much rather that a potentially good candidate such as Romney wins. So that there is a reasonable alternative to Obama.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries. This means independents, most Americans, will have even less say in who our leaders are.
The 20% of the population who are hardcore partisan douchebags like these make me sick. What we need is a process that let's the other 80% of the population - most of who are so disgusted by this that they don't even vote - have more say, not less.
Most people don't vote because they're lazy and disinterested, not because they're disgusted.
I don't even know if Palin is running, I think she might prefer to sit on the sidelines and help guide things.
But if nominated, here's how Palin wins the general election:
1) Hate machine starts up again (rather, goes faster than it has been).
2) Hate includes many statements that are horribly misogynistic, just as before.
3) People also start making fun of retarded kid again (just like before).
4) Real-World feminists finally have enough of misogyny, non-Democratic women vote for Palin in landslide.
5) Disability groups have enough of hatred, tell people to vote for Palin.
6) Libertarians (independents) realize that while she is religious, she's not about forcing religion on people and is the closest thing they will ever find to a mainstream Libertarian, vote for her en masse.
With only Democrats voting against her, and even then not all the Democratic women, how can Palin lose?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...not to bring up Nazis so quickly? It's melodramatic and confuses the issues.
Why should the parties get a say over how many can run for President. That is one of the most messed up things in this country. The two political parties get to decide who is in the presidential debates. Look at all the issues that came up when Ross Perot ran. He originally wasn't going to be allowed in any of the debates but they finally said oh your not suppose to be here but we will make an exception just this once. That is a clear indicator of how screwed up our political system is, that the two parties can keep everyone else out of the public debates. Personally I think it would be just fine if we had 5-10 people to choose from for President. It would make it a lot harder to game the system and harder for corporations to try and buy them all off like they do now. Corporations give huge donations to both parties to hedge their bets. It would be harder to do that with 5-10 people running.
The issue is the declaration you sign when you go to vote in the primaries. If you sign it falsely, as in you don't believe what your signing, or you aren't representing yourself legally, then it is a crime. Not all states have this, but a fair number do.
Could there be any doubt now that we are in a one party system?
People seriously still want Obama to be president?
Just when I thought my faith in the American public couldn't get any lower.
Bush got voted in. Twice. Palin becoming the next president isn't that far fetched.
Okay, did we learn nothing from 2008? What the hell do you think a superdelegate is?
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I find it amazes the mind that every time one party does something to get ahead. People bring attention to it, but fail to notice the underlying fundamental that both partys (and to the lesser extent - the third parties) all do tactics like this - its like chess.
An assasination attempt against palin wouldn't surprise me a bit, because it would probably the be party she's aligned with that took out the hit! She's like a pit bull - loved by some, but realized that in the end by most, its just not a good idea to go that way.
Hey, Godwin. What took you so long? The article was submitted a whole NINE minutes ago!
The topic is about the right wing politics, and in some fields, racism isn't far off. A remark about WWII is very valid in that case.
If we cannot refer to the lessons learned in that terrible period, then we are just stupid. Of course we have to learn from our history, and therefore it is necessary to repeat what happened in that time.
The "Godwin" argument was about any random internet discussion... not about specific political racism, where it is actually near-mandatory to repeat WWII facts so that we never ever forget.
As far as I'm concerned, it's near-impossible not to Godwin. We should never forget WWII, or what caused it.
To kill an argument which correctly mentions anything about WWII just by calling it a Godwin is a Godwin in itself.
In this case, the comparison is valid. It is one of the few well-known cases in history that compares to this move by the Democrats.
Operation Chaos already tried a similar idea in 2008; Republicans crossed the line to vote Hillary to distract the Obama team from the presidential race, by keeping them worried in the primary. It didn't work. This might not either
So... wasn't Obama being elected supposed to bring a new era of change and hope? Interfering with the Republicans nominations seems rather counter to that.
Limbaugh already did this in the last presidential election cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos
1) Vote for candidate you don't want to win 2) Candidate wins, and you're unhappy.
God spoke to me.
At this point, I think a literal monkey could win against Obama. The man has made nothing but bad choices, had increasingly poor public interactions, and has demonstrated wanton hypocrisy and contempt for the American populace.
Of course, that doesn't say much for Palin, et al. The monkey would beat her, too (with a stick, if you let him have one).
On the other hand, it worked before: how do you think McCain won the primaries in the first place? Yep, that's right - Democrats voting in the Republican primaries. (We really need to have open primaries.)
I would think the radical 'democrats' (the ones that would be voting for Stalin, were he on the ticket) would be more concerned with the Democrat primary, as there's likely to be one at this point. Considering how Obama barely beat Hillary last time around, one of the most universally reviled females in American public life, ever (except in NY, CT, NJ, and CA, where they've got even worse human beings to hate), he's likely goign to need all the help he can get from his Marxist kindred. It was them and them alone (well, and the dead people) who helped him win last time.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Palin will be remembered 50 years from now for inventing "refudiate." Don't misunderestimate this achievement. What misstatements can Obama stand behind, even one year from now?
both parties moving to OMOV (one member one vote) along uk lines would be better - you could even do it on a state by state basis then make the decision at the convention.
Wow, the 'hope and change' liberals have sure become cynical. Their boy is so indefensible they won't be running on his accomplishments. In the end their efforts are pointless. 10% unemployment, $5 gas, and grossly overpaid public unions will finish Obama as sure as the sun comes up.
an ill wind that blows no good
Anybody who joins this effort will be playing directly into her hands.
She is a lot smarter than her critics claim. She needs attacks and schemes like this in order to win. She is counting on them, and the angry left has such a long track record that she can reliably depend upon them to leap into the trap. Every attack like this provides a conservative with more validation with middle-class Americans. It's counter-intuitive to the left, but these attacks actually provide a certain type of gravitas; many in the middle-class see these things as proof that the left fears a candidate and that this, in-turn, means the candidate being attacked has enough substance to be worthy of the attack. The standard line of attack by big-city liberals against conservatives is that they are dumb and they use hick language. This was the line used against Reagan, Bush41, Bush43, some on the left even used it against Eisenhower (the same line was used by the left in France against Sarkozy). While her critics blast Palin as an obvious moron, she is busy cleverly immunizing herself against this attack with large portions of the population. Indeed, every time she speaks and is well understood by vast swaths of the middle class (who are quite familiar with the parenthetical style of speech she uses) and then is ridiculed by left-leaning pundits who claim she is unintelligible, much of middle-America has a reaction her critics cannot fathom; her critics are the ones who are seen as too dumb to understand even such common speech patterns. Palin's supporters remember well that the left was so panicked about her that people resorted to criminal activity to try to take her down and even then could find no dirt, ending up attacking her teenage daughter as a fall-back position. You might disagree with her about every single thing, and you might hate her style, but you make a big mistake if you become lazy and cling to the standard childish liberal line that anybody you disagree with is a hate-filled idiot. It's intellectually lazy and could backfire. I had to laugh recently when a left-leaning pontificator blasted Palin for reading children's books when she said she was reading C.S. Lewis, the attack said a great deal about the illiteracy and general ignorance of the attacker.
Remember, in 1980 the supporters of Jimmy Carter (who told us he was a super-genius Naval Academy grad and Nuclear engineer) were begging for the Republicans to nominate Ronald Reagan (the obviously stupid B-actor, former Hollywood cowboy and co-star to Bonzo the monkey) so that the incumbent super-genius do-gooder Democrat would be re-elected in a land slide. That folksy-cowboy actor, we were told, was probably illiterate and had become famous by reciting other people's words from scripts. The American people, however, where quite comfortable and familiar with Reagan and were sick of the Carter train-wreck.
Simply saying Obama is a genius does not make him so (he never released his records so we do not know how he got into college, how he paid for it, what grades he got, how he got onto the Law Review, etc.), claiming he was a Constitutional Law Professor (when he actually was only and adjunct prof teaching one course on community organizing) does not make him a font of wisdom. The man is clueless about how jobs are created and maintained in the private sector (having never even run a lemonade stand). Obama's young gullible supporters might have convinced themselves that this empty suit was a messiah by passing around a bunch of dopey hope-and-change slogans and posters, but the man's actual record has firmly established him as a moron. If unemployment is still high in 2012 (as is projected) and if Obama is still "staying the course" on his disasterous policies, still appointing extremists to government positions, still completely clueless on the differences between common criminals and terrorists, still caving-in to dictators and tyrants, continuing to spend us into deeper debt than all the presidents before him combined, then much of the country wil
Carter was thrilled Reagan was elected over Bush as he thought he was nuts and could be easily beaten. Look what happened?
The Tea Party folks will be very energized with Palin reminiscent of the libertarians who voted for Reagan. They were not energized with Bush back in 1980 unlike Reagan. The right is very far to the extreme as of recent who are labeling everyone as a RHINO who is not as extreme as they are. This would make the situation much worse.
http://saveie6.com/
There's a story from the end of the Roman republic that comes to mind.
Republican Rome had a very complicated legislative system with duplicate institutions and authority, which worked well only if "the way of the ancestors" was followed. If, on the other hand, that wasn't the case, the system was easily exploitable, but exploits could cause it to easily grind to a complete halt.
Tiberius Gracchus was the first to exploit (for a "just" cause, agrarian reform) the system successfully. He (completely legally, but ignoring tradition) sidestepped the Senate and used force to shut his opposition up.
Eventually, he was killed, but what he started lived on. The Roman republic was never the same.
In more ways than one, his action was the beginning of the Roman Revolution and lead ultimately to the fall of the Republic and the establishment of the monarchy under Octavian Augustus.
America is bankrupt.
If you believe the Democrats when they say that taxing the rich and giving free money to the poor will boost the economy, enjoy your bankruptcy. "Rich" people know how to invest much better than the Government. Business owners have made profitable positions in the market despite massive taxes (including your taxes like payroll) and massive regulatory burdens that increasingly expose them to greater legal risk. Indeed, the Government is so incompetent at investment that it always runs at a deficit -- even in a budget surplus -- as their only income is your income. Only investment will create jobs, and only production will balance the terms of trade. Spending "free money" from the gubment will dig the hole deeper through to China, Japan, Brazil, and other debt owners.
The bailout of GM might have made a profit on paper, but this is due to (1) a guarantee that the underwriters will not be held accountable to securities legislation; and (2) the nominal price may actually be over $3.00/share, but only after inflation. Go to ShadowStats.com to see inflation measured in the CPI (the CPI is not inflation) with the 1990 methodology: it is close to 8%.
Similarly, quantitative easing is outright fraud of the people, devaluing their currency. If any individual or private enterprise printed fraudulent currency, they would be imprisoned for life. As Ron Paul says, "Don't steal: the Government hates competition."
When the Fed is being used as the lender of last resort (and not even with currency from the existing money supply) the writing is on the wall. This is your last resort, and it is not going to work.
Someone who thinks we have 57 states, can't spell "advice" and thinks "Austrian" is a language.
Oh wait, he's now President.
Ms. Palin is unelectable. She shouldn't be on any ballots. The media love her since she is a lightning rod, not because she should govern.
President Obama is a 1 term President. He has been ineffective but many people believe he has ruined this country. I am not one of them.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries. This means independents, most Americans, will have even less say in who our leaders are.
A political party is a private association of people who agree to nominate people (typically members of their association) to particular public positions that are filled by public vote. Why should anyone not a member of a private association have any right to control the decision making process of that association (as opposed to setting the general framework - the legal system - within which that association operates, of course)? While it might be advisable for the party to listen to the opinion of the ordinary man in the street when selecting a candidate, it's still a private organization that's ultimately doing the nominating; if their general principles lead them to nominate the unelectable, they have that right. It's wrong to do otherwise.
If you're living somewhere where a private organization like that has such a total grasp on power that you feel that it is reasonable for the public to have such a say in their decision making, you're living in an effective one party state. Dress it up how you like, but that's one of your big problems right there.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Maybe we could get Dan Quayle out of retirement/where-ever for the Apocalypse Ticket.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
What kind of hammers?
Edward Gibbon sent a message through a spirit medium that he would like to offer his novelization services for Decline and Fall of the American Empire.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
...be careful what you ask for...
As someone who does not live in USA, I have to ask: Can you still call this "democracy"? I thought the point of elections was people choosing the candidate who they think is best. Now you are voting for the worst candidate in order to get one of the better candidates out of the way. A few years ago you had the candidate who most people voted for lose the elections. And even if everything works fine, you still choose from a very limited set of candidates, offered by two major parties.
As a programmer, I see the specification is "choose the person wanted by most citizens for president", but the algorithm is a bit too complicated and obviously does not work according to the specification.
(preemptive comment; Yeah, who am I to talk, I am probably some European commie anyway.)
Rush Limbaugh tried something similar in 2008 (encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary in Obama-leaning states), and it just made him look like a bigger d-bag than he already was.
I think it's dangerous and unethical to vote for a candidate other than because you genuinely want them to win. Dangerous because it can backfire, and unethical because it subverts trust in the democratic process and its outcome--however flawed they may already be.
I know that some states allow voters to vote in primary elections of parties with which they're not affiliated. I think this is just fine if those voters pick candidates who they genuinely want to see succeed. For example, had I been eligible to vote in Republican primaries in 2008, I probably would have voted for John McCain. In the general election, I preferred Obama, but I also genuinely felt that McCain was the most competent, intelligent, and deserving Republican candidate, and I wanted to see him succeed and make the general election campaign competitive and thoughtful.
If nothing else, Democratic voters should understand that they're doing their party no favors by setting them up with a weak opponent. Politicians without credible, thoughtful opposition tend to act like ordinary politicians... which is to say that they become corrupt, authoritarian, lazy, and devoid of ideas. Many American leaders have been most productive when they've faced smart opponents... and won. I'm thinking about Bill Clinton vs. Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan vs. Mikhail Gorbachev, in particular.
My bicyles
Some of us are doing for the lulz. (I'm registering Republican just to see the comedy that will result if Palin is the Republican nominee! And if President Palin becomes a reality, well then that's just even more lulz, and maybe time to get out of this country...)
Vote Palin in and I'll have to learn Mandarin.
Your country will end up so screwed up that international relations will suffer and the rest of the world will have to bow down to China.
Why should the public pay for party primaries?
The public pays to run elections. Any group that meets certain standards can ask a state's board of elections to include their group's contenders in a primary election, administered by the state as the public service that it is. The D's and the R's happen to be two of the largest and longest-organized such groups. Start your own! Win elections! Then change the role that state governments play in elections, one state at a time.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If the majority is so pissed off that they repeatedly vote "none of the above", then it's a good sign that it's time to reboot the whole system.
That said, I very much doubt it'd happen in practice. When that option was on the ballot in my country, it never got many votes.
You could always Palin nail .... I mean, nail Palin.
Infuriate left and right
2012 is a long way away, and karma is a bitch.
Let's say the Democrats do manage to get Palin past the primary. Then Obama has a streak of bad luck, like W did.
All it would really take is a terrorist attack, or a market crash, or anything that people could latch on to and gripe about. Doesn't even have to be his fault.
If that happens and Obama's numbers were to slip over the next 2 years, that would mean Palin would have a decent shot at being President.
NO THANK YOU.
Instead I'd much rather Obama ran against someone who is vaguely competent, so in the event that he loses the country doesn't wind up in Caribou Barbie's hands.
Besides - the process is to (hopefully) put the best people forward so the country has the best leadership available. Let's not wreck that. Let the Republicans pick whomever they wish, then we will try to win on our own merits.
Remember - karma is a bitch. The only way to win is to be the Good Guys In The White Hats(tm). Don't tempt fate.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"The public pays to run elections."
Pray tell, who is elected in a primary? They only serve to reduce choice. Why should an independent/third party member (i.e. taxpayer) pay to increase the odds that a major party candidate wins the actual election?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
State election boards not only administer primaries on behalf of parties that register to use those services, but they also whittle down the field of at-large education board contenders, city council seats, county board members and a jillion other large fields that vary from one place to the next. It isn't just about Democrats and Republicans.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Last time that happened Bin Laden struck and won because he knew the USA would act like a headless snake, thrash around, make more enemies and drive a lot of people to Bin Laden's cause.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
BS. If it were done on their behalf, they'd be paying for it.
You're guilty of begging the question. Your argument makes the completely unsupported assumption that reducing large candidate fields is desirable.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.
Not necessarily, but first all argue your case :
There is no fair voting system by Arrows impossibility theorem. It follows that if you manipulate the system indefinitely then you become a social ill. So you're correct in theory.
In reality though, our beyond stupid first past-the-post voting system has created an incredibly divisive two party system, leading the republicans to exploit human stupidity to create all manor of social problems, and thus freeing the democrats from any real pretension towards social progress. I'd therefore argue that exploiting the existing stupid system for positive change is justified.
Imagine for one moment that the Republican media machine will always create more Palins, i.e. insane morons who're popular enough for some poor shot at the presidency. In that situation, we should punish them for being so stupid by making them try to elect these morons. Yes, the whole country might suffer occasionally, but if that's possibly more like paralysis than damage, then progressives kinda still win.
In any case, I wouldn't worry about perverting a process that's already soo mind bogglingly stupid and perverted.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
This is just a cynical maneuver on the part of Tina Fey to drum up a little more overtime.
Have gnu, will travel.
Two words: Unitary Executive .
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The major beneficiary of this would be "Hillary!".
Clinton and Palin are so polarizing that the only way either can win their party's nomination is if the other does first.
Their party will then scrabble to fill the "chromosome gap".
It's like an exercise in game theory.
The best way to break the stale-mate is to have your supporters vote for the "other woman" in the other party's primaries.
Why should the public pay for party primaries? If the parties don't want 5 (or 10...) people running, they should control and pay for their own internal selection process. There's no good reason to ask the public to pay for their internal politics. That would also eliminate the issue brought up here, which can work both ways.
That's a great point. I believe parties are a huge disruption of the democratic process. I don't believe that parties should be illegal, as that would be a clear violation of freedom of speech and freedom of association. But I do believe that the parties should have zero recognition within the government. There should be no positions of Majority Leader, Minority Leader, etc. Do what you want outside the halls of congress, but inside you should be just another 'aye' or 'nay.' And similarly here. There should be no notification of political party on ballots (If you're going to include their party, why shouldn't you include their stump speech, too? How about their employer? College?), nor should the public be paying for party primaries. Of course, this will make it harder for the uninformed to vote, but that's kind of the point.
He plainly doesn't believe in the constitution
http://stevescomments.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/the-top-10-violations-of-the-constitution-by-obama-and-the-111th-congress/
I say we use this for true evil - Draft Hillary 2012!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
It's not necessary. I only need to wait for Obama Care to kick in.
The only reason there is a 2 party system is because only the hardcore partisans are the ones who reliably vote.
you're very wrong here. the impediments to a third party candidate are insurmountable.
Nader knows a thing or two about this: http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/273-Break-Down-Barriers-to-Minority-Parties.html=
not to mention that even if a third party presidential candidate were to clear the gauntlet and actually win the popular vote, he/she would die in a small plane 'accident'. There is serious money at stake here and no populist is coming along to fuck that up, period. and furthermore, the USA is a de facto one-party system, it doesnt really matter which one occupies the white house, the difference boils down to rhetoric and fringe issues, policy about things that matter is identical.
look sig is kool
BS. If it were done on their behalf, they'd be paying for it.
They do. You have to pay fees to election boards in order appear as a candidate.
Your argument makes the completely unsupported assumption that reducing large candidate fields is desirable
It does have the desireable effect of not leaving you with an election winner that only got, say, 5% of the vote. Hardly a mandate. Regardless, why do you care? If a group deciding to try to run a candidate for a state-wide or national office wants to take advantage of a primary election to establish who that candidate should be, what's it to you? If you're not in that party, it's likely you're not going to vote for the candidate their primary process chooses anway, right? The fact that one or more parties has used an election to choose their candidate for another election doesn't prevent two dozen independent candidates from also going for that that final win.
Of course those two dozen candidates are going to have a hard time attracting a winning piece of the electoral pie.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
To any individual in the Democrat crowd planning to do this:
Tell me shortly before the 2016 primaries what Democrat presidential candidate you would least like to see voted for. Then I'll crowdsource Republicans to vote for that person.
Don't like that? Then maybe you ought not do what you know to be unethical in order to acheive your goals.
In most states, if not all of them, the parties pay for their own primaries not the public. Generally when the primaries are on the same dates by law, the state and local governments might share the cost to throw their own issues on the ballot too. But this is generally only in states that have required dates for primaries with all parties on the same day. IF that's not the case, then it's all party payment for them.
I can imagine why this might get confusing. There are some states that have a set date for primaries and they will throw things on the ballot outside the scope of a primary like school levies and so on. But this isn't always the case and generally the parties pick up the tab for their costs.
That's pretty much the way it is in most states. Except that you don't have to register in some states to get the party ballot. However, if you voted in the last primary, you will only be able to get the same ballot as last time or an independent ballot in the next primary unless you show a registration card with another party.
The primary portions pertaining to the parties are generally paid for by the parties. Some states have more open law saying that anyone asking for a party ballot would get it. It's tricks like this that will get those laws overturned really quick.
It's a legitimate, if somewhat dirty and dangerous tactic. I will mention that when Limbaugh exhorted Republicans to do the same and vote for Hillary in the primaries, all the Democrats got on their high horses and demanded that people not vote for her if they didn't really mean it. Now I'm guessing that the High Horses are back in the stable and the next crop of riders will be Republicans. The Republicans used their strength, which is right wing radio. Now the Democrats are using their strength, which is internet organization. They both want to play "screw the other party" in the primaries, especially if an incumbent is running. To those of you who think that this will break our process, bless your naive little hearts. The process is already broken and rigged: Only members of the duopoly are allowed to win. Until will fix that, malicious voting in the primaries really won't matter.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries.
Closed primaries do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of an organized effort launched two years prior to an election to get people to vote in a particular primary of a particular party, regardless of where there loyalties lie.
It would affect the effectiveness of similar efforts conducted at the last minute, or individuals crossing over based on late polls.
That's two years for the other side to counter it.
I'll certainly be voting in my primary for the first time having heard this news, and will make sure I publicize this.
First, political questions are ethical questions. "Gaming" the political system is unethical.
Second, if this meets with even the slightest degree of success, it will backfire. By voting for Palin, you've granted her greater legitimacy and political power, whether she wins the nomination or not.
Vote for what you believe in, even if what you believe in has no chance of winning this election. Or, unless you're too damned clever for honesty and integrity.
Ask the French Socialists who voted for Jean-Marie Le Pen how they feel.
The actual story is here http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm [about.com] if you're interested.
I know the real story. Perhaps you'd care to look at a map?
What's that country right next to Alaska I wonder? What is actually incorrect about Palin saying if Russian airplanes were ever to attack they's be coming over Alaska? Remember the cold war was not that long ago, she grew up with it.
But that's not even the WHOLE story. Because the actual quote from Palin is, you can see Russia from Alaska. And that is true, from the furthest shores - it's only 59 miles at the closest point.
So what is your problem with an intelligent quote about Russia's physical and mental proximity to the U.S.?
What really kills me about Sarah Palin is not her ignorance, though that is a dealbreaker.
I can understand that; your ignorance is turning me off quite a bit. Stop reading bullshit about her and just try listening to one of her speeches. Even if you disagree with her philosophically, they are strong speeches.
It's the fact that I really don't trust her as a person. Basically every friend and political ally she's ever had has a story to tell about how she stuck a knife in their back
Well I guess you're not voting for anyone then, unless you are doing selective reading... you simply cannot get to that level of power politically without some people disliking you. Although I am personally dubious how many of the stories are real, more fabrications like the Alaska thing...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Dear Cmdrtaco,
Please fix whatever it is that's broken that causes me to see politics stories even though I have them turned off in my preferences. I'm sick of seeing trollbait.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
I don't think you need to worry. Gosh, aren't those famous last words? People think this is a race of Palin vs Obama in NORMAL circumstances. But what if in the week before the election something happens. Say a terrorist attack? A scandal? A mosque is build somewhere in the USA?
The likes of Palin always go up and down, and every thinks they can never recover from their downs. But the populist vote is always unpredictable and if the reason for their popularity isn't addressed (a fundemental distrust of the way the world is run) then anything can make their popularity rise again.
We got our own Palin in Holland. Geert Wilders. He wasn't a real threath as well. But he controls the government right now and despite that so far it has been a complete shambles and dropping results the REASON he was so popular hasn't been removed. And everytime an article happens like "5 youths attack young woman in train with hammer to steal phone" he gets another voter. Especially when the REAL story is that the youths had light tans (read Muslim immigrants) and this was part of a police description put out at the same time as the press release. Editing this out doesn't help at all, it just reinforces the believe that the "left" media is lying and that EVERY story about crime where race is not mentioned is done by Muslim immigrants.
Palin voters are not all right wingers in the way of anarchy style free market, they just see the houses in their street being foreclosed and nothing being done about it. They want SOMEONE to do SOMETHING. Palin's answer is that she is going to do something. Obama's answer is... well... what is it? Palin's answer is wrong BUT that is not what these people are hearing. They are seeing someone who can talk to them vs someone who can't. Obama has fallen into the trap that he has become part of the system. Might be the best way to at least get something done BUT the voter sees just another fat cat politician playing the game while the voters American Dream is falling to pieces.
Don't count Palin out yet. The source of her success is only growing. And even if she is gone, who is going to take her place.
A lot has been written in regards to Geert Wilders and 1932-1939 (Hitlers reign before WW2) but that in unfair. Geert is no Hitler BUT he MIGHT be one of the unknowns who lead the european countries leading UP to the election of Hitler. Hitler didn't create the nazi party and the national socialist agenda wasn't always the one that become best known for the holocaust. Palin/Wilders of the 1920's laid the foundation on which Hitler rose up. BUT ALSO the Obama's/Cohen's (dutch political figure who is blamed for the coddling of immigrants) they too helped, or failed to stop, the sentiment that lead to the growth of the extreme parties.
Read up on the pre-history of the nazi party and OPEN your eyes to see that it takes TWO sides to give an extreme party power. Bacteria can only grow on a nutritious surface. Do you blame rapid growith of bacteria on your kitchen counter on the bacteria or on the person who didn't clean the counter properly to stop the growth of bacteria and parasites?
Palin is not the disease, it is the symptom. You are fighting the fever, not the virus. I wouldn't celebrate when the fever goes down, the death of the patient might also be causing it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Friends don't let friends watch Fox. Why the hell are you letting your mother watch it?
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34719276
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668
ROTFLMAO!
I wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.
Sorry, chum, you're fair too idealistic.
The US electoral system is corrupt through and through - gerrymandering, electronic voting machines and campaign finance have already got that puppy sewn up in the bag.
Non-democratic measures would be coercion or electoral abuse - aside from my first point, getting people to vote for the "targeted loser" actually sounds very democratic to my ears.
President Palin couldn't do any worse that President Dubya, simply because she won't have Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz driving the bus instead of her. It's clear she hasn't got the wits to buy a bus ticket let alone drive it, or think constructively about tuning the engine or changing the destination. I think the only downside of a Palin Presidency would be that the remainder of the rest of the thinking world outside the USA would finally see your rhetoric for the sham it really is.
I'm not worried much about that anyway - the USA is on the way out, and the first states to secede (California, Hawaii, Vermont and Alaska, later Cascadia) will be the new shining beacons that allows us to breath a little easier. I know the people living on that land mass are not all as horrible as the officials governing the asylum, but fuck am I sick of Zeppo Exceptionalism - time you fuckers came down a peg or two.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34718828
I seem to recall a movement by Rush Limbaugh to get his listeners to vote for Hilary Clinton (whom he regarded as unelectable) in Democratic primaries. It clearly didn't work but this kind of strategic voting is hardly new. The difference is that with the Balkinization of the Internet and other forms of mass media, it seems to become easier to organize these movements with every election cycle. Ultimately, it all feels pretty pointless as the "base" of each party will tend to vote for more extreme candidates (usually the same candidates which the activists on the other side will regard as unelectable) on each side anyway.
Does this
... here's a thought. Why don't we elect the best person who wants to run for the job, instead of approaching politics as a "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" dems vs. repubs football game. While we have massive unemployment, industries fleeing the country in droves, massive debt, all we care about is if the democrats win or the republicans win.
As the elections in 2012 should be focused on the type of government we have, regardless of who heads it, the initiative should be to assure that as few Democrats as possible are elected or re-elected, including Obama, no matter who his opponent may be. 2012 more than any other election year will be one of voting for the lesser of two evils. The only choice is between a Socialist Democracy, which we have been becoming for over a century now, and a Constitutional Republic, which most have been mis-educated in what that means.
So this means that in the US anyone can vote in primaries, even the supporters of the opposite party?
That sounds a little crazy to me, precisely because you can do things like this... in my country, to vote in a party's primaries you have to be a member of that party (and of course anyone can be a member of a party if they pay a fee, but they won't let you be a member of two rival parties at the same time).
With this totally open primary system, what I wonder is why the democratic party hasn't tried to present one of their candidates to the republican primaries, or vice versa... it sounds like an efficient strategy.
Making shit up doesn't work well as an argument.
Here's the Michagan Law, which makes it clear that presidential primaries are funded by the state government.
Texas goes so far as to allow paying parties for their internal costs: "state funds may be spent as provided by this chapter to pay expenses incurred by a political party in connection with a primary election." - Texas Election code, section 173.001.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Why are you even heaving an election since its now known that 3/4 of your GDP is ran by the unelected FED bankers? http://pubrecord.org/nation/8622/pentagon-papers-wall-street/
This is just one more way those asshats will go out of their way to insure a skewed election result. Once in a while I get a sot spot for some piece of the dems liberal agenda and then they do this sort of shit and I'm right back to saying F em.
Go Palin! Kick their asses!!
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
This may prevent a more deserving republican candidate, like Gary Johnson, from getting on the ballot.
edit: searched 'Gary Johnson' on slashdot and found nothing. Disappointed.
Forget perverting anything, every part of this idea is TERRIBLE!
1. They want to help Palin, who could seriously be the next president! I know she's a joke but SHE COULD BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT! DON'T HELP HER!
2. They want to give Obama a second term (insert Picard facepalm here). Were these guys living in a cave since he was inaugurated!? He has barely delivered on any of the things he promised, and he wouldn't tie his fucking shoes if the Republicans didn't approve of how he did it! Can't they just vote in another Democrat? Am I missing something here?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
A lot may change yet until the election. What if the republicans end up winning despite this? Then these guys might just have caused the worst candidate (in their view) to win. Sure indications right now is that this improves odds for Obama, but it isn't a win.
I would have preferred an approach where both candidates are reasonable. I don't care much for gaming the democratic system, I think if this actually have any impact it would need to drive electoral reform.
P.S: I am european and I do not have much personal opinion on any of the candidates.
... they should try really hard to get rid of Hillary Clinton, well ahead of the presidential elections.
This won't be an easy task, though.
Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.
Um, I have bad news for you...
Though when you think about it, what other reason is there for a political party? Isn't appointing candidates (and helping organize the collecting of "contributions" for their campaigns), what do political parties mainly do?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
you're very wrong here. the impediments to a third party candidate are insurmountable.
This is because third parties are doing it wrong. They're trying to go for the brass ring when they hardly have a viable (ie. visible to the public) contender in the que. Third parties need to focus on state and local elections so that their party's platform gets known and established. This will help them gain momentum. With the funding that most third parties waste on presidential runs they could turn 3 or 4 small elections into victories where the candidates of the majors are soft.
For this reason I will not support a third party with donation but I will support individual candidates of a third party. Any money sent directly to the party will likely be wasted on pie-in-the-sky aspirations while viable candidates for lesser posts languish.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I don't think the Dems 'invented' this idea. I won't even give Rush Limbaugh credit, as I think the idea probably goes back to almost the beginning of party politics in the U.S., but I will point out that Rush Limbaugh advocated an idea he dubbed 'Operation Chaos' during the 2008 primaries, which encouraged Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the democratic party primaries. So, as the saying goes, remove the log from your own eye before trying to remove the mote from your brother's.
I generally vote Republican, but consider myself independent, and I see that neither party has 'clean hands' when it comes to politics.
Regarding cross-overs, my take is that it should only be allowed during years in which there is a primary for both parties, and you should only be able to vote in one party's primary or the other, but not both. When one party is not having a primary, it leaves too many people with nothing better to do than to mess up the other party's primary. When both parties have a primary, if someone decides to vote in one at the 'expense' of not being able to vote in the other, that at least means that, for the most part, the real party voters will be voting in their own primary because they won't want to lose the opportunity to influence the race they are most interested in. At that point, anyone crossing over is probably genuinely more interested in their own party's primary.
And, oh yeah, all primaries in all states should be done on a single day. This nonsense of spreading out the primaries over the course of like 6 months, is ridiculous - it leads to situations like 2008 where Operation Chaos could happen because the Republican primaries were, effectively, over - McCain had already won enough states to seal the deal, so all the other primaries were just irrelevant. If you have all the primaries in one day, folks won't cross over, because they won't have the ability to know whether their candidate will 'lose' anyhow.
President Palin? That's got a certain horrible ring to it.
PRESIDENT Palin thanks you for your vote, after defeating surprise Democrat nominee Tina Fey, in an election confused voters called "A bad joke..." No one really know which one is which anyway...
Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.
IMO, it could lead to the opposite. Provided people don't over-react about "spirit of the primaries." (The Spirit died long ago, dude, it's dead.)
In a few decades, you could end up merging the Rep/Dem primaries, and produce a sensible "run-off" system that ensures the top two most popular candidates for the final election.
In 2008, because Bush poisoned the republican vote, it's likely the two top candidates were Obama and Hillary. In 2000, Bush and McCain (with McCain winning.)
Wouldn't that be a more interesting system?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
It's because the people demanded it. In the 18th and 19th centuries, parties really did just go into smoke-filled rooms and appoint a candidate, just like the private institutions they were intended to be. The party conventions, where the state delegations get together to hold a vote whose result is known in advance, is a remnant of that.
It wasn't until the early 20th century the reformers demanded more say in the process. And it really didn't become widespread until 1968, when the Democratic party leaders ignored the primaries and ran their own candidate (who lost to Nixon).
That's why it's publicly sponsored: because the public demanded it. The party leaders would be very happy just handing you a candidate again, and such things might well avoid some of the embarrassing mis-steps like we've seen in the past.
Given the number of candidates with somewhat extreme values who have been successfully elected, the potential for this to backfire seems rather high. Instead, lobbying for run-off elections or other systems that encourage people to vote for whom they want, rather than vote against whom they don't want would be more useful. No more "Gee, I want to vote for the Green Party candidate, but since she's unelectable, that would mean the person I least want will win. Therefore, I have to vote for the 'lesser of evils' candidate." Vote for your top three, and not be penalized. Perhaps in the days before cars, planes, television, telephones, and computers, the Electoral College made sense. But holding onto it for tradition's sake doesn't seem practical. (There are other "traditions" that are now viewed as civil rights violations. So, the government is capable of throwing out traditions.) If Democrats (or for that matter, any other party) are intent on perverting the system, I'd favor a strategy of trying to get more of the opposition's least opposing candidates in there. In other words, sane people from the opposing party, who if elected, may not be my personal favorite, but is closer to my position than the mainstream of the opposing party.
Just count each vote 1:1 and forget the "seats" bullshit
The number of democrats who would be willing to do this are miniscule.
The number of republicans who use this movement as political fodder will be significant.
This does nothing but to hang a "We're crooked" sign on the democrats, it'll help the republicans far more than democrats.
wasn't this already done to help hillary go against a weaker primary challenger (obama) with no executive experience?
and now aren't we living with that tragedy?
The model for the US election system is a horse race. There are those that cheer for the furthest back horse but more importantly there are those that will switch to backing the "front runner" simply because they are likely to win.
Backing the apparent winner appeals to people because of the vicarious win they get.
So, what if through various machinations Sarah Palin appears to be leading the Republican primary it would not be totally unexpected for other people to get behind her as the leading candidate.
So certainly it is a very dangerous strategy if the objective is to get someone for Obama to beat.
Though I do think it's highly informative, it's unfortunately quite unabashed and unvarnished in it's portrayal of the brutalities perpetrated by the conquistadors and colonists... it's more fit for the college reader, IMHO.
However, an insightful, but pleasant read that I think all high-schoolers should read is James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher told Me" . It talks about why, for example, the Indians had some power and representation in the early days of the USA, while after a while they lost it (hint: economics and trade).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I think we should go back to the system where the Vice President is not picked as the running mate of the presidential candidate, but instead is the runner-up in the electoral college. That would stop this whole plan dead in its tracks, as the words "Vice President Sarah Palin" should strike fear in the heart of any Democrat. At the very least, if someone was to still cross party lines in the primaries, they'd do it in an attempt to get someone picked who they would not mind being the VP, most likely a moderate and not an extremist like Palin.
I think it would also act as a good check against a president abusing their power, as the members of Congress would be a lot more likely to call "foul" if the next in the line of succession was not of the same political party as the president themselves. I'm sure one of the reasons that George W. Bush was allowed to finish his terms is that anyone who wanted Bush out of office was too scared of the prospect of seeing President Dick Cheney if they were successful.
And here is a law describing the filing fees to cover the costs of elections.
We can do this all day long but I should point out to you that your laps of reading comprehension skills doesn't not mean I was making anything up. I did not say all states, I said most of them. You finding one state to the contrary, does nothing to my statement. Also, the very same laws you pointed too describe filing fees and petitions of signatures indicating that in fact, the parties pay the government for the costs of the primary elections. Because it goes to the state and the state pumps it back out does nothing but confuses you.
And then there's totally relying on them to make sure you say nothing off-script.
Obama's heavy use of teleprompters is SO BAD that even The Onion did a skit on his teleprompter breaking down during family dinner.
Such as "You can see Russia from Alaska"
It was absolutely, factually correct.
The part about that being from her house was an SNL skit, and that was promoted by the media as actually being what she said.
I'm not a Palin fan, very much disagree on the religious stuff. But you must be blind to reject the fact that the media treated her very harshly while giving Obama a virtual free ride.
LOL. Are you seriously trying to claim that the under $100 filing fees of a few dozen candidates, pays for the cost of a statewide primary? That doesn't even pay for printing the ballots. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you're not really that stupid, but just flailing yourself trying to defend your (incorrect) point.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The problem with it is that she implied that *she* had some dealings with Russia. In reality, her only dealings would have been buying Russian Vodka.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Yawn.. You are boring me.
Why don't you read what I said again and get back when you can process it.
BTW, focusing on one part of the statement and trying to extrapolate it to a point of absurdity isn't the way to show your right in an argument. All it does is show that you don't have much to work with.
These days, I do see that it's common for progressive middle school teachers to use A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn
Any government school "teacher" who uses that book in their class is not interested in educating students, but rather interested only in indoctrinating their captive audience into socialism, communism, anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism.
That being the case, such indoctrinators need to be killed.
Really, why would anyone want such a terrible, communist, progressive, socialist, spend money our government does not have, person that wants to ruin our country for a second term president???
I'm telling you, democrats really are idiots and morons!
Is this really what it's come to? Are the Democrats really giving up on Obama being able to actually win the favor of the American people enough to win a second term on his own merits? Is fighting fire with mud really the plan?
People wonder why I've given up on politics. This kind of rubbish (which extends to all the local political business as well, lest someone say that this is only a problem on the national scale) is why I no longer look on politics as viable. It's a complete fucking circus, and I treat it as such... I sit back, and watch the car wrecks happen.
I'm stunned at how much worse it's gotten in the last 20 years or so. Just when you think we've reached the nadir of respectability for our political system, something like this comes along. Seriously, how long until the DNC and RNC just offer openly to buy votes? Another three elections?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
If he really needs this kind of "help" to get reelected, maybe he shouldn't be. Why don't Democrats look for their own better candidate instead?
According to the OED:
***
just, adv.
Etymology: just adj.: compare adverbial use of French juste.
1. Exactly, precisely; verily, actually; closely: cf. even adv. 6. Formerly often even just. Qualifying a prep., adv., or adv. phr.; or an adj., pron., or n.
***
Perhaps you should master the language before you criticize its precise usage.
This would be awesome (or at least interesting) if if the democrats could pull this off.
Are usually the racists.
Go look in a mirror.
Much the "stupid bumpkin" image is manufactured by her opponents. The "religious whacko" image has much more truth to it.
As far as Russia, yes, Russia and Alaska do have dealings with each other. The constant political wrangling over fishing and gas rights with the US doesn't come without the involvement of Alaska's governor.
Back to the old Democrat race-baiting method, any criticism of a black by a white is by definition racist.
That such a search shows mostly signs not related to race is a clear indication that people are trying to manufacture racism charges.
And the Southern Strategy was racist? Of course it was. It was the Republicans exploiting a century of Democratic Party racism. The racist Robert Byrd wasn't an aberration, he was your average old-time Democrat. Strom Thurmond was racist too, and Democrat, but he switched to the party of non-racism once his attitude changed.
Oh, yes, do remember that historically the Democrats are the party of racism and segregation, while the Republicans are the party of equality. The supposed Democrat switch to being the saviour of the blacks was the greatest political turnaround in history. But all they did was introduce more modern forms of racism.
Comedy follows culture. The Onion is one of the best sources of contemporary comedy in the country. If they're spoofing it, you can be sure it is something society is thinking regardless of political leaning. It wouldn't be funny if there weren't truth to it, and The Onion is funny.
I haven't seen this widespread attitude towards a president's originality and sincerity in speech since the 80s when comedians went after Reagan for acting like a pre-recorded Disney attraction.
Now you hear TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States), and TOTUS even has his own blog. You never heard that from the right during Clinton, or the left during either Bush. Bush Jr. even went on a well-known rant against teleprompters once.
There's using a teleprompter like most speech makers do. And then there's completely relying on it as Obama does. This over-use fits in perfectly with Obama's campaign strategy, where any information the media got was only done in a very carefully-planned and controlled manner that fit perfectly into the strategy and official message that took months to carefully construct. You can't have the candidate/president just saying what he wants at any time, as he too may get off message. He must read everything from the teleprompter if the organization is to stay on message. In those few times when he's not on teleprompter, he has very long pauses and considers his words very carefully before answers. He's running what he's about to say through a mental message filter to try to stay on message. You will never get an honest, simple answer from Obama himself without that filter.
Junior's problem was that way too often he just spoke from the heart, no message filter. Although it produced some pretty dumb sound bites, it was kind of refreshing to hear what a president is honestly thinking.
That's because they would only be preaching to the quire (who already rejected it)
So... in other words, you're saying everyone who watches FOX is already convinced of everything they say, so their propaganda has no effect. Oh.
I suspect this wouldn't apply to MSNBC, would it?
So what was implemented incorrectly?
Before you post crap about the law being "unconstitutional", I know about the judge from Texas who issued that opinion. Are you familiar with his arguments? Besides essentially filibustering it based on his irrelevant policy positions (he thinks it would hire too many people who are not defending the border), he finds the law unconstitutional because it provides health care to illegal aliens.
I love how conservatives always consider the obvious, like what to do with a bleeding Mexican.