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."

23 of 1,128 comments (clear)

  1. As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.

    1. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The process doesn't matter when the system is already f-ed up.

    2. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its already been subverted, explain gerrymandering.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    3. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea let's have a 1 party dictatorship instead.

      Some say it's already one party -- the Corporate party.

    4. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are asking the wrong question. This is less of a perversion than the Watergate break in. And that was done for an election where Nixon was heavily favored and won. Even with a winning candidate, parties will do illegal things for an extra margin.

      Yes, I know that sounds like a false dilemma, but what are the other options?

      It is a false dichotomy. You don't "trick" people just to win. You "trick" them to support you. Even if the popular vote went to one candidate, you still take office and discuss your mandate from the voters. That's an outright lie, but people don't care. When you have more votes, it's more of a mandate. When you have more votes, then you have more power for demanding things. There isn't a "trick them to win" and this being the only time such a thing was heard of. It's "trick them to support you" and has been done by pretty much every candidate for every office in this (and most other) countries.

      Abusing the already-broken two-party system is fair. Complaints against it sound like Dolly running to mommy and complaining "Mom, Billy hit me back." If the Republicans don't like it, they shouldn't have forced it down our throats. The only true bi-partisan topic is that both agree that they don't like any 3rd parties, and the primary system is just another manner of lock-in.

    5. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          F-ed up or not, consider if the elections aren't rigged by the companies and interests who own and operate the voting boxes. Everything is perfectly fair.

          There are enough Palin zealots riding around on their dinosaurs, pitching stones from Anchorage to Moscow.

          There are also a lot of people who swear by the phrase "never vote for the incumbent"

          Assuming the overlap isn't 100%, and the sum of the two groups discounting overlap is greater than 51%.

          This stunt could put Palin in office.

          Never, ever, ever, put someone up as a candidate that "can't win" to ensure your own party can, because sure as hell you'll get that person in.

          I really don't want Palin in. I don't want to go to the beach and admire the oil slicks from thousands of new oil rigs. I don't want us to declare war on Columbia, Cambodia, and Canada, because they all "sound the same". And by golly shucks, she'll single handedly bring the average IQ of the country down to low double digits (ok, down by 3 points, but still), even if it's just from directing schools to teach what she knows to be true.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    6. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Intelligence is overrated when it comes to the president. They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average. Common sense and real life experience (outside academic and political world, which don't count) and understanding of history are more important. A slightest inkling of a clue about economics would be a nice change too. Not saying that Palin qualifies by any means, just that the fact that Obama has high academic qualifications doesn't make him a good candidate, as his presidency so far has demonstrated.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This stunt could put Palin in office.

      No, it can't, and it won't even get Palin the nomination.

      Any of you who pay attention to right-wing media know that the word must have gone out to sink a Palin candidacy. There's been segments on every major conservative media talk show talking about how Palin shouldn't run and can't win. Even Fox News has been touting polls showing that Palin is extremely unpopular, even among Republicans. And one thing for sure, when you see a story this specific showing up all over Right-Wing Media, from Glenn Beck to Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson and Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, you know there's been a decision made in whatever brain trust send these whackos their talking points: It's just not Palin's time.

      Even if you don't pay attention to the right-wing swamp, you're bound to hear one of these stories as they dribble down the corporate media stalactite. Eventually, one of these stories will reach you out on the long tail. See if it doesn't and remember what I've said.

      At the moment, smart money is on the holy rollers Huckabee and Kasich as the golden boys of the "christian" "values" voters. As long as "what happens in the barn stays in the barn" they've got a good chance to pick up the nomination by the time the second round of early primaries happen.

      Fortunately, though, the tea party folks are feeling their oats so there will be a significant drooling moron effect that will make the GOP primaries very entertaining. But the suits who bankroll and run the whole shebang aren't going to let the Alaskan Christine O'Donnell get anywhere near the nomination. The teabaggers have served their purpose and now it's time for them to sit quietly on the back of the bus and behave.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. WCPGW by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What could possibly go wrong?

  3. Why give them the publicity by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why give them the publicity by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are all politicians. They all play the same stupid game. The real question is why would anyone want to be president. you get all the blame none of the glory, and if someone 20 layers of management under you screws up you still get blamed.

      Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Why give them the publicity by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.

      $65M is nothing to sneeze at

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  4. Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this stage what we really need is for the Democrats to grow a spine, and tell the Republicans to put up or shut up.

      Democrats have had control of the Presidency, Senate, and House for 2 years now and things have not gotten better at all, some would say worse.

      So tell us again who has to put up or shut up?

    2. Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clinton also had the benefit of a red hot economy, whereas Carter oversaw a pretty shitty economic period. Clinton had it pretty damned easy overall; good economy, friendly relations with most of the countries in the former USSR, slaps on the backs with China, and generally seen in a very favorable light domestically. Carter was seen as a waffler, though I think to some extent he was prevented by circumstances far beyond his control.

      Obama may fall into a similar trap of being unable to deliver the impossible miracles that his supporters seemed to believe he could. It's Obama's fault, too. He raised expectations to insane levels that no one, no matter how competent or brilliant, could ever hope to achieve. He didn't have supporters so much as he had fanatical devotees, and there's no group that will turn on you faster than those types.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. What these Democrats don't realize... by dachshund · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

    1. Re:What these Democrats don't realize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate"

      Neither has Obama

  6. Been there, done that by nutshell42 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    in 1933 the German Conservatives decided to support Hitler as chancellor to destroy the Nazi movement by confronting its ludicrous proposals with the cold reality of real life government.

    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
  7. Please, please, no by mean+pun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. There is one very simple reason not to do this: by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. Further reduces influence of independent Americans by dirkdodgers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Hold your Horses there SharpieMarker by pfrCalif · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever ..

    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.

  11. This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... by Krishnoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." -- Eugene V. Debs

    Not sure who he was, but it's made me recast these kinds of things in a different light.