Electoral System That Lessig Hopes To Reform Is Keeping Him Out of the Debate (usatoday.com)
schwit1 writes: Lessig has raised a million dollars, which is nothing to sneeze at, but he's being given the cold shoulder by the Democrats when it comes to participating in the debates. I think he's got a good argument for being included — he's certainly as serious a candidate as some of the others, and I'm hearing a lot about his campaign.
Why are they keeping Lessig out? According to Lessig, it's for the same reason he wants in: "My view is that if we can get this message [of reform] into the debate it would change the dynamics of this Democratic primary entirely. This issue framed in this way totally blows up the Democratic primary."
Hillary and Bernie, he says, are promising the moon to voters, but can't deliver. Lessig told me, "If I can get on that stage and say the rocket can't get off the ground, and we have to change this dynamic first," the narrative shifts in a way that the leading candidates can't address.
Why are they keeping Lessig out? According to Lessig, it's for the same reason he wants in: "My view is that if we can get this message [of reform] into the debate it would change the dynamics of this Democratic primary entirely. This issue framed in this way totally blows up the Democratic primary."
Hillary and Bernie, he says, are promising the moon to voters, but can't deliver. Lessig told me, "If I can get on that stage and say the rocket can't get off the ground, and we have to change this dynamic first," the narrative shifts in a way that the leading candidates can't address.
Oh my, someone told this gent there was going to be a primary race. Sorry, we've only got a coronation scheduled here.
It's the Democrat Party and the media that is keeping him out of the debates. The Electoral System has nothing to do with it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Republicans are currently blowing up their establishment. It takes some balls to do that, especially if you're a politician. They're trying to shake things up and get the Old Guard to move on. This has come from the ground up over the past few election cycles and it appears to be working.
Why can't the Democrats do that same?
by showing up as competitive without having a SuperPAC at all.
I don't see Lessig's referendum only strategy to be any more likely to come to pass than his previous let's build our own SuperPAC attempt. He could have actually ran for senator and had some impact from within the system. It would have also gotten him more of a podium for advocating for these changes.
Lessig has raised a million dollars, which is nothing to sneeze at
A million dollars is nothing. Sorry to break this to you but that's not even enough to be a serious contender in a lot of state level elections. A million dollars is a rounding error in current day presidential elections. Someone like Hillary Clinton can raise multiples of that in a single evening. $1 million might seem like a lot to some people but it really isn't.
but he's being given the cold shoulder by the Democrats when it comes to participating in the debates. I think he's got a good argument for being included — he's certainly as serious a candidate as some of the others, and I'm hearing a lot about his campaign.
No he really isn't a serious candidate at this point. Almost nobody knows who the guy is and he has (near as makes no difference) no money to buy recognition with. He's a political lightweight with essentially zero name recognition. I have nothing against the guy and I think he's got some interesting ideas but right now he is definitely not a serious candidate. He's basically a one issue guy who has offered to resign after fixing those issues (campaign finance, gerrymandering, voter access) which basically makes him a non-starter. Basically that means that even if he were successful (which he almost certainly wouldn't be) you'd be voting for his VP to be president and a new VP to be named later.
Some would say that she could have avoided Obama exposing her corruption by not being corrupt in the first place.
Some would say that she could have avoided Obama exposing her corruption by not being corrupt in the first place.
Lol, stop with the crazy talk!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Lessig is being kept out for the same reason the DNC is vehemently resisting having more debates: nothing shall put Hillary's candidacy at risk.
What corruption? The only leaks have suggested she might have miscategorized the security status of some emails, an administrative error not an issue of corruption.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, you idiots will believe pretty much anything.
First, it's several hundred emails, at least.
Second, mishandling classified material is a FELONY, not an "administrative error".
Third, even if one accepts your patently risible characterization of "administrative error", how FUCKING TRUSTWORTHY DOES THAT MAKE HILLARY!? Yeah, NOT TRUSTWORTHY AT ALL and therefore unqualified to be President.
Finally, Hillary! has downright LIED multiple times regarding her email server - WHICH NEVER SHOULD HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE as it was an ILLEGAL METHOD TO CONDUCT GOVERNMENT BUSINESS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROPER CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGALLY-MANDATED FOIA OVERSIGHT.
Geez, you're one Thalidomide-brained moron of a shill.
...that's the party primary system. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and are not an official part of the electoral process.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Much as I like his platform, it's hard to treat him as a serious presidential candidate in the context of what a debate is likely to cover when his stated position is that he cares only about passing campaign finance reform and then will resign.
From Lessig's own campaign page (https://lessig2016.us/)
"He will serve only as long as it takes to pass the reforms necessary to fix our corrupt political system. Once passed, he will resign, and the vice president becomes president of a government that works."
That means if you want to have a debate about foreign policy, talk to the VP. Tax policy? Talk to the VP. There may be some people who like the single-minded focus this implies, but since we're talking about a 4-year term, that leaves a huge swath of debate issues left in an unanswerable state, especially since he hasn't named his VP yet.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.