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."
If it truly was a 2 party system then you would not be groped at airports by the government.
At best you have the Dems afraid of the insane Reps.
At worst and most likely you have 2 sides of the same coin play fighting as if Washington was the WWE/WWF. and Corps are paying the Critters to "fight".
It's all bread and circuses. you can try to vote for a 3rd party but you cannot win. Easily-tampered electronic voting machines without a paper trail make sure of that. Then there's Florida...
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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.
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.
Or we can have a no-party system and consider political parties to be criminal organizations. That might not be so bad. At least we'd stop arguing about whether the country looks better painted red or blue.
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
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.
Have you considered that it might not really be democrats behind it? If Palin runs, the republican primaries are going to be vicious.
One of the other republican contenders could easily be behind this knowing full well it probably won't help palin but news of it may mobilize the saner parts of the republican party.
What's really going to blow your mind later is - what if Palin's camp did it? I mean there have been accusations in the past of this type of genuinely un-american behavior, but was there a website? Was there actual PROOF that it happened, or just speculation? Because here we have those vile evil Democrats trying to bring Sarah down. But what if her supporters are only strengthened by the thought that their enemy would sink so low? I mean, so early in the race, they must be really worried to pull a stunt like this, right?
Anyway, who ever is behind it, it is obviously a sham. There's zero participation on the site. Maybe, MAYBE one comment per blog item. It's been up since '17 Nov 2010'. Not much traffic for something that just got posted to slashdot. Google right now is showing 'About 435 results'. I can get more than that out of 'fat kid loves to exercise'.
If you really wanted to get to the bottom of it, identify SharpieMarker. From what I can see they're the only human alive who knew the site existed until it got slashvertised. The user account here is brand-new, too. Nothing but this one submission. And yet it got posted so quickly? Eeeeenteresting...
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
The situation is more complicated then you think. A "fair" system will, on average, give Republicans 58% of the seats with 50% of the votes due to the presence of lopsided Democratic urban districts and a lack of correspondingly lopsided Republican ones. You need weird looking districts that start in the city and tendril out to the suburbs if you want a representative legislature.
The man was the "most powerful man on earth" for 8 years. He is married to one of the currently-most-powerful women on earth. People pay motivational speakers hundred of thousands of dollars to speak... why would you think that someone with Bill Clinton's resume would be unable to command similar fees?
I was never a huge fan of Pres. Clinton - he was a decent president, but I disagreed with some of his policies and views. And even with that, if you offered me the opportunity to sit down and talk with him, or hear him speak? I'd take it. The man has lived an extraordinary life by any measure you care to name, he's intelligent and well-spoken. Even though - as I noted - I might disagree with some of his views, I don't think he's a "bad person" because we'd disagree, and I'd welcome an opportunity for a dialogue, or even just the opportunity to hear a little more about why he believes what he does.
Your comment smacks of partisanship - anybody who disagrees with you must be getting money from foreign agents as a way of saying "thanks for your consideration when you were in office"? Without some serious evidence to back that up, that's a pretty outrageous claim.