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."

40 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 peragrin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Palin Zealots aren't allowed to ride on dinosaurs as dinosaurs where put there by god to test man's ability to deceive itself into believe the earth is only 6000 years old and one of the first ones born lived to be 900 of those years.

      However i do agree with every else you said.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by Zencyde · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
    8. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      This woman is about a dumb as a box of hammers.

      That's an unfair comparison.

      At least if you have a nail, a hammer is good for SOMETHING.

    9. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by Marcika · · Score: 5, Informative

      As it is, she's a drop-out governor and media pundit... no better than Obama - a community organizer.

      Malicious cheap shot at Barry O. She dropped out of 5 different undergrad party schools, he graduated HLS with highest honors and as editor of the Harvard Law review. She still has her "own" books ghostwritten, he wrote a best-selling non-fiction book way before he was ever elected into any public office. She speaks as a "pundit" on issues she doesn't understand, he has had a 12-year-tenure as a lecturer on constitutional law at UChicago.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... by DavidShor · · Score: 5, Interesting
      http://stochasticdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/11/gerrymandering-compactness-and-toblers.html

      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.

  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.
    3. Re:Why give them the publicity by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...

    4. Re:Why give them the publicity by Americano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  4. Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie by clone52431 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

  7. 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
    1. Re:Been there, done that by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      What the hell are you talking about? The closest thing that I can think is that Centrists supported the Nazis and DNVP in voting for the Enabling Act, which essentially gave Hitler dictatorial powers. But even before that, Hitler controlled over 40% of the German Reichstag. If you're talking about the deal that made Hitler Chancellor, that wasn't Conservatives supporting him, that was industrialists and von Papen thinking that the Nazis were not as powerful as before, and that Hitler could be controlled.

      All in all, Hitler's rise to power was based on a bit of luck, a huge popularity and some miscalculations by some key politicians about what Hitler would be like.

      That aside, yes, this proposal is playing with fire. Too many things can happen. For one, it is entirely possible that Obama cannot or does not want to run for re-election. Then what?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Been there, done that by Marcika · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      To be honest, this story - although apparently often told in classrooms - is somewhat of a canard. The "Germany Conservatives" who supported Hitler and Von Papen in a coalition were the DNVP - a nationalistic, populist and anti-Semitic party with leaders only slightly less crazy than those of the Nazis. The actual conservatives (the fiscally and socially conservative bourgeois KVP, Zentrum and BVP parties) did negotiate with the Nazis but never reached a coalition agreement with them - exactly because the Nazi ideology was so fundamentally different from traditional Christian-conservative ideas of government...

      The only person who might have this idea of marginalizing Hitler by putting him into the spotlight was Von Papen; and while Von Papen was nominally still a member of the Zentrum party when Hindenburg asked him to try and form a government, none of the members of Zentrum were willing to support his 1932 "cabinet of barons". He was pretty much discredited by the centre-right as the "Ephialtes of the Centre Party".

  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. Re:Okay, great. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  11. 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.

  12. NOT AN ARTICLE by EmperorKagato · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  13. Too late. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  14. Not a good strategy by 7-Vodka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

    1. Re:This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure who he was...

      Eugene V. Debs was a founder of the IWW and the Socialist presidential candidate 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920 -- running that last campaign from the prison cell where ha had been placed for daring to make a speech opposing the World War I draft. He was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, and it's no surprise you're not sure who he was: as his life story is an embarrassment to American capitalism and authoritarianism, it's unlikely he was more than a footnote in your high school history book.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

      President Wilson is an asshole for jailing people simply because they used their speech to oppose the war. He even went so far as to jail Alice Paul and the Suffragettes just because they asked for the right to vote. And to segregate the army into black-white where it had previously been integrated.

      What a dick.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  17. Here's how Palin wins by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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