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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Democracy selects for candidates who lie convincingly to get everyone to believe that they're going to get what they want if they vote for them.
We have a word for people like that: psychopaths.
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.
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
I wouldn't be so sure. If this works, there are going to be a whole lot of Republicans at the ballot box having to decide between someone they came very goddamned close to voting in as a Vice President of a Presidential candidate they weren't really thrilled with in the first place (but they voted for McCain because he was NOT a Democrat), and a Democrat.
If Palin wins the Republican primary, I think you'll see a decent amount of interest in a third party, but it might be a moderate third party candidate that some Democrats could get behind as well.
You'll also see a good number of people who use the word "socialist" in conversation frequently who would gladly vote for Anyone But A Democrat. They'd probably line up to vote for Satan himself, as long as there was an (R) at the end of the name on the voting card. I'm sure there are a number of electoral votes that any Republican could count on no matter how radical they were, and it's a fairly significant number.
(to be fair, the same basic thing is also true of many Democrats).
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it is. The spoken words are vastly different, but the actions are very much the same. The substantive differences are in who they prefer to put first in the lines for welfare and whether they prefer to tax people today or borrow today to tax even more tomorrow. But they both fight hard for more government, more intrusive government, and reduced individual rights.
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.
He was the worst president ever because he was a great man. An uncompromising and honest man will be an ineffectual president.
Learn to love Alaska
If they don't think Obama can win, maybe they should run someone else.
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.
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"
Religious bigotry is alive and well, I see...
(Disclaimer: I think that Palin isn't presidential material either..)
Not sure who he was, but it's made me recast these kinds of things in a different light.
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.
Regardless of ones party affiliation, it ought to be obvious that she's not qualified to be President. Hell, she's not even qualified to be VP. I mean she doesn't even know what the VP does, let alone possess the necessary ability to articulate it.
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
Explain, then, how it was that 60% (more in some polls) of the American people opposed Obamacare, yet it got passed anyway?
Well everyone hates "Obamacare". The legislation that was passed enjoys approval of a majority of the public when it's actually described, but when polling questions ask a boneheaded question like "Do you approve of Obamacare", it regularly receives disapproval. Only idiots refer to something using an "Obama" FOX-style prefix when asking people whether they like it or not.
One answer: They threw themselves on their swords for the greater good of the party... the single party. They knew they'd get booted, but didn't care because Repubs and Dems are the same thing, just a thin veneer differentiates the two.
In other words, they're presumably thinking, I'm going to vote yes on X because "I'm the same thing as" person Y who is voting no on X. WTF are you smoking? Is it expensive? Because it seems that if both parties are full of bad people, and if that automatically seems to extend to equally bad, there's no point in distinguishing between them or holding anyone accountable for anything.
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.
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.
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
Meanwhile a compromising man such as Reagan paid off the terrorists with millions in cash, sacrificed a lot of marines to Hezbolla in Lebanon (not properly deployed because they were there to "show the flag") then sold over a hundred rockets to Hezbolla via Iran. He is remembered as a Hero for attempting to restart the cold war until Margeret Thatcher convinced him to back down, by eventually deciding not to play he won.
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
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.
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.
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.
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