Slashdot Mirror
Larry Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign, Citing Unfair Debate Rules (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Harvard law professor Larry Lessig is ending his run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lessig blames the demise of his campaign on party rules that have left him "shut out" of the Democratic debates. "The party won't let me be a candidate," Lessig said in his final campaign video. "I can't ask people to support a campaign that I know can't get before the members of the Democratic Party."
This is the Democrat Party we are talking about. The coronation of Hillary for 2016 was decided years ago.
You think you want to know the truth...but you don't. It's worse than anything you could even imagine.
I think that we need to scrutinize election rules under the same constitutional lens we're using for gun laws.
We need to get away from the clinton's, bush's and future obama's and get actual presidential material into the white house.
That can't be done if the media and election laws shape only the rich and powerful to get elected.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Lessig has great ideas, and we need someone really serious to fix the corruption in our system. However, I can't imagine anybody taking his platform seriously. He wants to resign after a partial term! I think people won't want to elect someone that's only serious about doing part of the job. A specialist. Unfortunately, the US has been sick for a long time and needs a specialist.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Perhaps a single issue "I'm going to pass one law and then resign" candidate just isn't well aligned with the Democratic party platform? Just a thought.
Obviously not that sharp.
I think you're proving the point of his complaint with that comment.
Money can't buy the Republican Nomination, just ask Jeb Bush.
I wonder if the Democratic Party is the wrong platform for the kind of reform Lessig is gunning for. It's a shame that Third Party candidates hardly have a chance, because this really is where his candidacy belongs.
HuffPo actually explains how the rules changed:
The DNC's rules for candidate participation in their debates were pretty straightforward--or so we thought. In August, before the Lessig campaign began, DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, announced the standards for being included in the debates. As she described the rule, a candidate had to have 1 percent in three DNC sanctioned national polls, "in the six weeks prior to the debate."
[...]
And indeed, that is precisely the rule that was applied in the first debate. As CNN specified in a late September memo, to qualify a candidate had to poll at 1 percent in the "polls released between August 1, 2015 and October 10, 2015." The first debate was October 12.
[...]
During that call, I was told that the DNC participation standard for the debates was for a candidate to be at one percent in three polls conducted, "six weeks prior to the debate"--not the clarified rule cited earlier by Wasserman-Shultz and the DNC political director that a candidate had to be at one percent in three polls conducted "in the six weeks prior to the debate."
So the DNC had said 1% in the six weeks before the debate and used that standard in the first debate, but in the second debate where Lessig qualified by that standard they switched to 6 weeks before the debate.
It seems odd even if you don't take the wording at face value and wonder about the missing upper bound in the range given by "six weeks before the debate".
I can see why the DNC doesn't want a candidate who is there almost explicitly as a one issue protest candidate but that's a fairly dirty way to go about it.
I stole this Sig
It was quite obvious from day one that the people who organize the party have absolutely zero interest in Larry's platform, and that they will make sure that anything like his project gets hidden from the general public.
As soon as he had any chance to be something more than a "decorative" candidate the party would make sure that he is blocked, because the system suits them just fine.
The core issue is that the sheep vote for who ever has the more shiny adverts, so there is no "short term fix", maybe something like a 10 year project starting with a general campaign telling the public to under no circumstance vote for an incumbent candidate, no matter how bad the other guys are the only way you as a citizen can be listened is by showing that you have the power to punish a politician, and you need to punish all of them just for being unable to fix the system.
Then campaign on : look at the tools that enable you to asses you representatives past performance, and future projects, ignore their adverts they are of no value what so ever...
Then maybe, just maybe for the third round people will vote for their candidates because they believe in what they are achieving, or really planning to achieve and not because they have more shiny ads and are not quite as bad as the other guy(gal).
I can't believe there's still a year to go in this process. We had our entire Canadian election in the span of a few of these debates...this seems just a wee bit out of hand.
And nobody still knows who Lessig is.
A lot more people would have known who he is if he had been allowed into the Democratic Party debates.
Did he have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination for the upcoming 2016 election? Probably not. Could he win somewhere down the road? I don't know.
But, to me, what's interesting about this story is that certain people in the Democratic Party really didn't seem to want his message about the corrupting influence of money to be heard. And when you look at all the millions of dollars that the Clintons have been given by dictatorships with terrible records on things like religious freedom and women's rights (e.g. Saudi Arabia), it's not hard to imagine that it wasn't just a few rogue Democratic Party outsiders who wanted Lessig's message to be suppressed.
It's never a democracy unless it is in your favor. /s
The system is rigged, unless you or your candidate wins. /not sure if snark
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Why would choosing a party candidate be democratic? Who the fuck cares whether or not it is (besides the losers, obviously)?
... and no one except his Mom and a few slashdot editors knows or cares.
That may change. For me, even just a few years ago, the corrupting influence of money in politics wasn't an issue that I'd ever really thought much about. There was a lot that I was angry about. But it was hard to make sense of it all.
The Iraq war never made any sense. If there was any country that should been held accountable for 9/11, it was Saudi Arabia. But somehow Saudi Arabia was our "friend". And then there was the housing/financial collapse followed by a long recession. Supposedly the Tea Party was all freaked out about the budget deficit but their solution was to advocate cutting taxes on the rich. Huh? If you're really concerned about budget deficits then you raise taxes - particularly on the people who can easily afford to pay more.
In his Gettysburg Address, which he probably wrote while he had smallpox, Abraham Lincoln talks about the USA having been founded to have a government of, by, and for the people. Now, at least until our robotic overlords take power, governments are always comprised of people. But what Abraham Lincoln meant was ordinary people - that the U.S.A was founded to be different than Europe, and most of the rest of the world, that was, at the time, governed by a small, mostly hereditary, ruling class living lives of frivolous luxury by exploiting everyone else. To me, one of the most egregious betrayals of the principles on which the USA was founded occurs at times when the USA is itself controlled by a small mostly hereditary ruling class and when the ruling class uses the US military to support brutal dictatorships in other countries because these dictatorships give money and other personal favors to members of the US ruling class - i.e. the "banana republic".
So why does a candidate like Hillary, who claims to be all about women's rights, have such a cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia? Obviously, follow the money. Like the Bushes, the Clintons have been given millions and millions of dollars by the Saudi ruling family. Do we want yet another president for the USA who deep in the pocket of brutal dictatorships like Suadi Arabia? Well, my personal answer is: Absolutely not!
There was a time when I didn't get it. But now, with Hillary running for president, and likely to receive the democratic nomination. Lessig's message about the corrupting influence of money was exactly what was needed. It's just too bad that the Democratic party chose to shut him down and suppress his message.
Lessig didn't drop out because the debate rules were "unfair". He dropped out because the DNC changed the debate rules midstream in a way that would exclude Lessig from the debates. His campaign worked hard to meet the requirement to participate in the second debate, at which point they changed the rules to exclude again.
Note that he raised more money than Webb and Chafee, who were allowed in the first debate; and if his name hadn't been excluded from polls, it's even conceivable he would have been allowed into the first debate.
Why would choosing a party candidate be democratic?
Do you know the meaning of the phrase "Eating your own dog food"?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If that was truly the case, then there was no point in trying to stop him... Somehow, he scared the Democrats' brass.
To some extend, nobody knows who Martin O'Malley is...
Actually they kept him out because of how sharp he is. Afraid he would reveal how corrupt they are and the whole system is. Or are you saying he should never have tried something because it might not work?
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
That and less clever than Trump who managed to put one over on the other Democrats.
He's in favor of government funding for Planned Parenthood and he has expressed both support for gun control and complete ignorance of the current gun laws, so he's not going to pull away any Republican voters.
He has not put forth an agenda on Income inequality, the budget deficit/national debt, union support and police misconduct, so he's not going to be able to develop a connection with the Democrat base.
His one big issue is something that the majority of Americans do not support.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
He raised the money they required. Then they changed the rules to requiring 1% in the polls. He got the required 1% in the polls. Then they changed the rules to require the 1% 6 weeks before the debate... They just keep making up new rules that will shut out just him. They are afraid to lose the ad revenue they get from corruption in politics.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
A lot more people would have known who he is if he had been allowed into the Democratic Party debates.
Yeah, that's even true for you Mr. Anonymous. It's hardly a reason to include him in a "PARTY" debate.
Yeah, people with a brain would have a potential exit from Mrs. Bill.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lives in his little ivory tower, dreaming of schemes that fir his view of an ideal world, while living off of the single most evil form of financing available in the US - The Obama-era student loan. These student loans, thanks to the takeover by Mr Obama, are:
1. Designed to grow to make it so any kid can afford tuition no matter how much the evil elites inflate the price tag way beyond the rate of inflation. In other words: there's no economy-driven limit to how high the prices can get jacked for the exact same diploma.
2. Replacements for all private student loans. You used to be able to get loans from places called "banks" that make loans. Now, as in anything taken-over by government, there's no evil businesses trying to make a profit and students are left to happily rest in the loving arms of the federal government monopoly, from which there is no escape.
3. The one form of loan that cannot be escaped via bankruptcy. The kids taking-out these massive loans to stuff the wallet of Mr. Lessig and his buddies are going to be paying for the rest of their lives.... and as part of the new budget deal between Obama, Reid, Pelosi, McConnell and Bonehead, the old limits of loan sharks using robo-calling to hassle people over student loans have been eliminated. Hooray for the folks sucking-up all the cash for the universities!!! Hope you Lessig fans with college loans like robocalls!!! That new 2-year budget deal will and all deals between congress and Obama, since he never actually wants to negotiate and it eliminates all their leverage, so dream-on if you think some cool new bill will sail-through into law to "fix this"
Lessing is an evil troll who lives off of stupid young people too gullible to know better.
I honestly don't know how much Larry Lessig is motivated to try to do something about the corrupting influence of money on the American government by concerns about academic topics like perpetual copyright extension or by concern for ordinary Americans. But, regardless of his motivations, if he were to succeed in reducing the corrupting influence of money on the American government then ordinary Americans would almost certainly benefit.
It's ironic that so many Americans are terrified of Muslim terrorists taking over the USA when the main ruling families in the USA, the Bushes and Clintons, are already solidly in the pocket of the Saudi royal family.
Lessig's campaign asked the DNC for clarity on the rule, and they kept waffling back and forth on whether it requires 1% in the polls >6 weeks before the debate, or 6 weeks before the debate. I have a feeling that noone at the DNC actually knows which it is, explaining the conflicting answers; the 'rule' is probably only there for show, and never actually critically applied; it is simply 'known' which candidates have enough buzz, and those are the ones that make it to the debate.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This is the Democrat Party we are talking about. The coronation of Hillary for 2016 was decided years ago.
No, his main problem was nobody knew who the fuck he was outside of a few nerds.
This guy was less prepared to run a presidential campaign than that fucking idiot Rick Perry. And that makes him a bigger idiot than Rick Perry--now there's an accomplishment.
It doesn't matter how prepared he is. Because the Clintons have the party establishment tied up, Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her, and she has a lot of legacy antipathy that will make the general election harder for her. Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
Why didn't he read the sign on the side of the tree-house?
The Left in America *despises* the common folk.
You're talking right out of your ass here, or at best, projecting. Seek help, in case its the latter. Even such a bigot as you has the right to know his own mind.
If he can't convince his own party to put him in a debate, how would he do at convincing congress and senate to support his policies as president? Convincing politically biased groups to do things is just about the primary job skill for a president. It sounds like he thought he had that skill, but it turned out that he wasn't up to the practical test.
Reading his statements, it's clear he was absolutely DELUSIONAL about the effort and skills required to do what he claimed he would do... even worse than Donald Trump.
Go through the comments that followed his recent article in The Atlantic (don't bother reading his statement). Everybody but him (and I maybe TWO random commentators) could see how glaringly irrational and fraught with obvious flaws his whole idea was:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
To some extend, nobody knows who Martin O'Malley is...
Well, I know he's a Democrat. I can't say the same about Mr. Lessig.
You're talking right out of your ass here, or at best, projecting. Seek help, in case its the latter. Even such a bigot as you has the right to know his own mind.
He's not really wrong, though he should have said extreme left. That of course is the left part of the spectrum, where anything that isn't a part of your ideology is far-right. You can look at the amount of garbage coming out of universities attacking common people from wrong think, going directly after freedom of speech and expression, attacking people for wearing costumes they find offensive, whining about how people are invading their safe spaces while engaging in so much self-hate and white guilt that they're drowning in their own stupidity.
It's not limited to just the US, it's also in Canada and in Europe. Many of the things the extreme left are engaging in, aren't any different then what the ye olde aristocracy engaged in. That's not disproving the occasional horse shoe theory in action.
Om, nomnomnom...
If there were not such thing as political affiliations and people ran as people, we wouldn't have this problem.
Lincoln and FDR. To a lesser extent LBJ. The rest were basically figureheads.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Ive met him a few times and Im from a third world country with no PHD at all. Yet he listened to my ideas with interest and gave constructive and useful suggestions. He listened to my talks the way I listened to his lectures.
You are slandering a man in ignorance. Elitist ? Exactly the opposite. He is a man who spends his life in search of new ideas and cares not where he finds them
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Yep. No liberal I know votes democrat because they trust the politicians or has any faith in them delivering on election promises. They vote democrat because if they dont the republicans would give big red button to a batshit insane lunatic.
Better a bad but sane president than a batshit crazy one. Good candidates dont get to be an option anymore.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I thought his job was supposed to be convincing voters. Maybe that's just my biased view of living in a country with much less corruption. He did raise more money than several others in the race, including in the democratic debate and was polled at 1% in three separate polls. So he did convince people. He indeed failed to convince corrupt media that they should give up on millions of dollars of easy profit every year.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Using the term "republic" to mean "representative democracy" is not a good idea, as to most people "republic" simply means a country without a dynastic leader. It might be a dictatorship, it might be a direct democracy, or it might be a representative democracy, or anything else.
By not be able to convince the Democrooks Mr. Lessig already showed the world how corrupt that political party really is
On the other hand, if the Democrooks let Mr. Lessig progress all the way, smooth sailing style, how is the world going to know what those special interest groups inside the Democrook camp is afraid of?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Well, the THIRD definition at dictionary.com is "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state", but the FIRST definition is "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them". Wikipedia leads off "A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law."
It's clearly a tortured stretch to refer to a dictatorship as any kind of a republic.
the Republican Clown Cars or recent elections and are working hard to eliminate non-serious candidates who have zero chance.
I wonder how President Lessig would react to a terrorist attack in the US? How would he cope with Russia, China, and the Middle East in general? What were his plans for spending and funding? Did he even give any thought to that?
Did he ever consider that he might be faced with responding to a nuclear attack, and the standard US response to such a thing?
Best Slashdot Co
Yes, some of us do know who Martin O'Malley is. He screwed up Baltimore as mayor and then decided to do to the rest of Maryland what he did to Baltimore as governor. Seeing Washington right next door, he decided his ego was big enough to encompass that as well and is now running for the Democrat nomination. But he doesn't have a vagina so this isn't his year.
If a candidate can't sustain at least 1% in the polls for six weeks, then they aren't a serious contender anyway.
In one poll, he needed to garner more than 1% in three, but after winning that margin in one poll, they took his name off the next polls.
Because then they could cite the rules about needing to poll to refuse him a seat.
Meanwhile, how many republican nominees did they let in, even on the same damn channels..?
when they refuse to put your name in the polls? That's what they did.
Shutting Lessig out was to stop the idea that money should be taken out of politics, because most of that money goes to the media organisations. Letting Lessig in would cut their revenue significantly.
Remember, this is an industry that wants to get skipping adverts made illegal because it might hurt their profits, and CEOs claim it is "stealing from the company" not to watch the adverts.
You don't think they'd make up rules to save the billions they get from political ad campaigns??
Lessig didn't even make the top 7 of the list of potential Democratic candidates. If anyone has a claim that they've been unfairly removed from the candidacy, it's the candidate at #4 or 5 who didn't get included in the debate -- yet no such claim has been made by any of those others.
*Some* method has to be used to gradually reduce the list of people to debate. What does Lessig propose? He could not even gather the support for that. Is that the fault of the process, or him?
Lessig might have actually had a chance, can't have the possibility of messing up the Royal Coronation underway!
Same reason Biden is not running.
I thought it was Jeb's turn this time? I guess Obama messed the schedule up.
Just like with Bob Dole, in his day, it's Hillary's turn this time.
Lessg's key issue is imposing stricter government restrictions on speech. The party elites don't support his plan, the rank and file don't support his plan, and the broad electorate doesn't support his plan.
It's no wonder those guys don't want Lessig as their candidate.
If we don't get leaders that actually solves problems into positions of power it really doesn't matter what we elect.
Lessig has no realistic plan to solve, or even address, any problem. His plan is to amend the constitution (something the president has no power whatsoever to do) and then resign. That isn't a plan, it is a fantasy.
He had the bully pulpit to be a centrist, and a single issue that's of importance to thinking individuals on BOTH sides of the political fence who are getting tired of the Hobson's Choice of the two-ever-more radicalized party establishments. There is a mass of people on the right who are conservative, and who want nothing to do with the right-wing activists that have taken over the GOP. There is (I'd guess) a similar mass on the left, probably quieter as they've held the presidency for 2 terms. But these people are ready for a credible 3rd way.
Unfortunately, on the rest of his issues he was your garden-variety, quasi-socialist academic liberal meaning as a NATIONAL CANDIDATE he was worthless.
The fact that he thought raising $1 million was meaningful was laughably pathetic, and only exposed how completely naive he was about the scope of what he was attempting.
-Styopa
He should have declared a hunger strike; a fitting contrast to the rapacious greed he is fighting against.
Westerners don't use this tool nearly enough which is ironic, given that most Americans could last quite awhile before succumbing to starvation.
He is a guy running on the single issue of censorship of political speech, while complaining he is being censored from being able to speak at DNC events.
Sounds like an ivory tower idiot.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Professor. The last thing we need in a president is an anti-First Amendment fanatic.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
It was just more grandstanding and self-promotion from one of the biggest narcissists to walk the face of Earth.
I bring this up occasionally -- get on the Michael Medved Radio Show. Medved is a nationally-syndicated, conservative, radio talk show host who invites debate and frequently has guests with opposing viewpoints. He is very polite to his guests and callers, so Lessig would definitely be allowed to make his points. This is an area of frequent discussion on the Medved show, so I'm sure that he'd be interested in having Lessig as a guest.
This is what happens to all candidates that don't have strong poling numbers. They get shut out of the debates. They get hardly any questions at all. I thought this was supposed to be a democracy? I think that all candidates should get equal time in the debates. Give them all x number of minutes to make their case to the American voters. Without moderators jumping in or getting cut off by other candidates. Every time a candidate jumps in take a minute of time away from their talking time.
The current format is a circus. Nothing more than name calling and gotcha questions. Let's find out what they really have to say and let them stand or fall on their own merits.
Paranoid bullshit.
Idiot that hasn't been paying attention.
Banning of expression and speech banning wrongthink
Banning of speech on university campuses and another banning costumes and another safe spaces, and no dissent safe spaces and pro-racial segregation. Did I miss anything, or do you need a few dozen more examples? This isn't isolated, you can find more examples of every single one.
Om, nomnomnom...
I forgot in my previous post, that this isn't a left-vs-right thing. This is the pro-authoritarian left mainly right now, with some on the right with shared beliefs(aka horseshoe theory in action), and pro-social libertarian left and right fighting against this garbage. This is how far banning people for wrongthink has gotten.
Om, nomnomnom...
LBJ changed things all right, just not in a good way. He massively deepened America's involvement in the Vietnam War, leading to the deaths of 50,000 Americans and around a million Vietnamese. He was one of the worst Presidents in US history.
He did manage to get the Civil Rights Act passed, so that's good, and he tried to do something good with his Great Society program (though the actual results weren't that great), but his involvement in the war more than makes up for all that.
You live in a country with the *perception* of much less corruption. Feel free to reveal your country, and it won't be difficult to prove how rife with corruption your country is. I've never even heard of a country with low corruption, because human nature and societies ruled by a ruling class of politicians is universal amongst all currently existing nations. The effects are also the same.
The only difference between the U.S. and other countries is the degree of international media coverage, and that it's currently "hip" to hate on the U.S.
If that is your only argument, you've already lost. Because assuming that Roodvlees is telling the truth, the problem isn't that he couldn't sustain 1% for six weeks, the problem is that the dems invented that requirement as soon as they realized he met all existing requirements.
If the biased media unfairly refuses to acknowledge the candidate exists, how's he supposed to get the poll numbers?
Lessig lost because the media pre-ordained it, simple as that. It's the same reason Bernie Sanders will lose: the media categorically refuses to acknowledge him as a serious candidate despite the fact that he's been polling above HRC at least part of the time!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Its unfortunate that so many of us do not see the folly of having debates in the first place. They are only useful if you are trying to figure out who is best at lying, manipulation, coming up with cleverly worded jabs at the opponents, and telling people what they want to hear. I wish that the energy that campaigns put into debates and television would transfer to the online space where they would be forced to describe their platforms in writing and where they could be analysed and weighed for completeness and logic.
But when you combine that with the fact that the two dominant parties completely control the electoral process, that's called "tyranny."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well the gp didnt say only good changes
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
To me, it's the other way around. Convincing the voters is just how he gets and keeps the job. The actual function of a president, however, is not to get elected; it's to decide what action is appropriate, and then to convince the politically-biased groups in the various branches of government to do things that need to be done. Some bossing around is certainly possible, but there's a lot of convincing involved.
Scott Walker also dropped out.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
If that was truly the case, then there was no point in trying to stop him... Somehow, he scared the Democrats' brass.
Oh, that's just like the folks saying that Democrats were scared of Sarah Palin. I'm no Democrat, but wasn't anyone afraid of her, we just liked to have her around to laugh at.
You can't let everyone in on national debates, it just isn't practical. Even the present day overstaffed Republican debates are plain weird - at one time they were pretty funny to watch, now it just seems like people bragging about how long they've cheated on not taking their Thorazine. I suspect those will change as well - probably held in secret, as they are starting to ban networks. Hint - if you won't use Fox News any more, maybe the problem is with you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
A candidate needs 1% to be in a debate, but can't get any national coverage because they are not in the debate.
That is such an obvious logic problem you have to hurt yourself in order to avoid it. We have not even gotten to the point of being over a year before the election. You know how we keep hearing that "it's a long time until election day and Trump and Carson could still lose the nomination"? Well the wey to prevent that would be to omit people from the discussion to begin with.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It doesn't matter how prepared he is.
Yes, because nobody knew who the fuck he was outside of a few nerds.
Yes, Obama was not supposed to get the nomination before and Hillary is Rather Irked about that.
The Republicans at least have the good sense this time to kick out THIER retread.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And nobody still knows who Lessig is.
Nobody knew who Ben Carson was before either, but they do now.
That's the power of the primary debates, is anyone can come into national prominence.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
LBJ created the War on Poverty, the second-longest running war after the War on Drugs.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
BTW - Ole' Ben Carson has been running a campaign for nearly a year now. Maybe not officially, but there has been a PAC on this for a LONG time. He wasn't totally unknown when he officially filed the paperwork.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
All involved have "maintain the status quo" as a prime motivation.
Suck it up and try alternative means to be heard.
Requiem for the American Dream
Same reason Biden is not running.
Not quite. Biden isn't running because he doesn't want to get whacked.
By who? Hillary? I think Biden knows that unless Hillary gets perpwalked in handcuffs, his best day in the polls would be when he officially started the campaign. He doesn't have the juice to compete with the Clinton machine. He'd loose like he did before.
Or the Republican? It's pretty clear to me that the republican nominee would wipe the floor with Biden. Biden is a walking gaff machine when he's out talking off the cuff, and if he ran it would really hard for him to stay on prompter. He'd be forever walking back the gaffs...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
good post. I wish more voters and media talking heads could grasp this fact; would help a lot to weed out the nutters.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Based on results of the wars on drugs, poverty, crime, etc. We need a president to declare war on intelligence. I have high hopes for President Trump or Carson on this.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her
While Bernie Sanders is an independent, he does caucus with the Democrats. He's also trying to get the nomination of the Democratic party. You haven't explicitly defined 'viable' here, but I believe Bernie Sanders does indeed satisfy the criteria to be elected President.
Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
So you're dismissing his candidacy on emotional grounds? How helpful. If only everyone thought like you -- then maybe, just maybe, we'd have a chance at implementing meaningful change in this country.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Lol. ROFL. How hard and long has your gop been trying to get trump out? Had he not been number 1, he would not be in the debates. And fiorina had to shame you criminals to get on the floor. No doubt carsen made it only because he is black and so many of you are hiding your white hoods.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
He's not viable because the general election is going to be a whole lot worse for him than the primaries, no matter how he's polling generally now. The attack ads almost write themselves. They do for Hillary too because of how much is anti-Clinton on the right, so neither of them are great for a general, but she's already been through all of them and her general numbers now are the result of that, whereas Bernie will see a hit once the general public has seen more attack aimed at him. Things like "socialist" may not matter as much on the left, but that label alone will cost him points on the right. And some of his lines in debate will kill him on the right. In reality he *might* be a better president than HRC, he'd certainly care about Americans more and try to make better policy changes, although HRC might get more done even though being much less trustworthy, just because she's a good politician. Most of Bernie's more leftist ideas would be blocked by Congress, but he'd probably get some good things done. It's really hard to say who would ultimately be better.
But either will be better than the Republicans, because the next president gets to appoint major voices to the Supreme Court for the next several decades.
Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her
While Bernie Sanders is an independent, he does caucus with the Democrats. He's also trying to get the nomination of the Democratic party. You haven't explicitly defined 'viable' here, but I believe Bernie Sanders does indeed satisfy the criteria to be elected President.
Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
So you're dismissing his candidacy on emotional grounds? How helpful. If only everyone thought like you -- then maybe, just maybe, we'd have a chance at implementing meaningful change in this country.
I find it unlikely he wins the primary. I'd be happy, I think, if he won the general. I'm not dismissing his candidacy on emotional grounds, I just think that he was allowed to run primarily because somebody decided he didn't pose a threat. Being outside the classic party establishment may also have made it practical.
So you can only get known if you're already known?
Honey Boo-Boo for President 2020!
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Lawrence Lessig- the Real Obama.
Biden tried and failed to get his party's nomination TWICE already. In this business, the third time isn't the charm, and two strikes is out. His 2008 campaign was effectively over just moments after it started, as he unloaded a half-dozen controversial statements about his opponents that went viral, and never recovered.
His continued poorly-considered statements after becoming Vice President prove he hasn't learned anything, and any Biden campaign is going to be peppered with video of him telling the viewer to "Get a shotgun" followed by usage tips which would get anyone else arrested for negligent discharge of a firearm. Combine that with his advanced age and recently-deceased son, and it's obvious why he wouldn't and even shouldn't run, without resorting to crazy theories.
There's no major animosity between Obama and Clinton that would cause either to set-up the other for failure. Clinton was a close second in the 2008 primaries, far ahead of Biden, and the obvious presumptive nominee next time around.
And just because Biden was Obama's choice for VP doesn't indicate any particular preference or connection. VPs are generally chosen to fill-in and balance out voting blocks, not because the administration has any particular preference for them. In fact quite the opposite (disdain and animosity towards their chosen VPs) seems to be more common.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It's not like the Democratic party called him up and gave him permission to run. He declared his candidacy and then quickly and effectively put out a message that the majority of the country agrees with in a way that caused a lot of people to start talking about him. He forced his way into the Democratic contest, he was not "allowed" in. If they would have tried to push him away then there either would have been a lot of people asking questions about why some candidates aren't allowed to debate (which neither party wants to answer), or he would just run as an independent.
He wasn't "allowed" to run, he made it happen because people agree with his message. The reason why there is so much doubt around his candidacy is because the media and the parties keep telling the public that he is a fringe candidate. He's not fringe, he's mainstream. The media is trying to push fringe candidates like Clinton and Trump/Rubio/Cruz on people and call them mainstream, but the polls show that the majority of the country supports Sanders when people aren't being shoved loaded terms like "socialism", where they think it means something that it doesn't. You can see that in polls where people say that they agree with Sanders' positions, and also that they wouldn't vote for a socialist. The media is controlling the dialog, which is why you think Sanders is a fringe candidate or does not have a realistic chance at getting elected.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The U.S. political system would have to be completely overhauled in order for one person to make a difference. Especially as President. If someone actually did a study on the mechanics of our 3 branches of government and the usefulness of them, I'd guess every positive change is matched by at least 10 parts obvious corruption, and who knows how much unadvertised corruption.
I don't want Lessig to waste his time in that clusterfuck because I think he's too good of a guy and doing too much good from an outside perspective. I think the best thing for the Republicans is that the Dems make him the president - and absolutely nothing would get done for 4 years, at least until there was an anti-American impeachment hearing. The only thing he might have direct influence over *might* be Executive Directives, and they'd get put right back in after they shoved him out (if anyone ever stopped following the current ones).
In "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008) Jennifer Connelly's character said (approx): "Leaders? [The President and the UN] aren't our leaders - I'll take you to one" and she takes him to a Nobel Prize winner in "cooperative biology" - a brilliant, thoughtful person.
Exactly.
Lessig is more than just a thoughtful person, and rather than seeing him get beat down by the political system - ESPECIALLY if he were to win the Presidency! - I hope he continues making more and more of a difference as a professor, private citizen, and activist.
Best of everything to you, sir!
Only the dumb ones.
It's not like the Democratic party called him up and gave him permission to run.
It's a democratic primary. If the party really didn't want him to run, he wouldn't be running. They would change debate rules to keep him out and deny him access to anyone of significance in the party at any level, local, state, or federal. They would kill his media coverage more than they have. Everyone in the party would get the message that if they went within ten feet of this guy they would be bucking the party establishment and would not have party support come reelection time. That's how major political parties work. They are engines of political control, not of democracy.
This is to me the fundamental flaw in America's notion of democracy. We have all these guards at the gates to filter out who is allowed to have a legitimate shot at being considered for office. The blame lands on both the party leadership on both sides and with the news media. They all conspire to maintain control and to make sure the American people do not truly have free will in the election choices. I really hope the day comes soon that the American people stand up and demand more than the illusion of choice. I hope we stand up and demand more than our pick of the rubber stamped celebrity politicians who have enough name recognition to walk in with good poll numbers before the race has even begun. I'd like to see the news media try some actual journalism and show us the details of the relevant candidates rather than just shoveling more from the constant flow of pseudo news of the life and times of the most interesting celebrity candidates.
Neither the Democrats nor Republicans have anything to offer; which is why I believe Trump will earn both the nomination and the presidency. This is not a joke.
I don't know about that. Women are predominantly going to vote for Hilary. I don't think you realize the vitriol that many women have for Mr. Trump. My own mom surprised me by calling him an "asshole" when his face popped up on TV. Minorities are not going to vote for him due to his views on immigration.
Trump, at least, for all of the negative, has character, backbone, and is too arrogant to lie.
Let's just agree to disagree on that. The lying, not the arrogance.
Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."
Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.
Sanders is not viable to the oligarchs. And that's who runs the country now. We peasants and bourgeois need to get back in our places, and let the two faces of the single party rule.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
They would change debate rules to keep him out and deny him access to anyone of significance in the party at any level, local, state, or federal.
...and then all of the supporters that he has been very effective in attracting would be asking questions that the DNC and the RNC do not want to answer. It would be very bad for the DNC to deny him access to the primary. Once he started spreading his message so effectively, and people started listening, then he ensured that he would have a place at the table. The DNC didn't help him get his message out, either, that was all his campaign. The DNC has opted out of putting up their own tables outside of his rallies to sign up voters, because those voters would just vote for Sanders. Think about that one for a second.
They would kill his media coverage more than they have.
"More than they have?" His campaign has survived and prospered despite, not because of, media coverage. He has never had good coverage. The media shows him as being fringe. You could see it in the first debate. The "political insiders", talking heads, networks, etc all declared Hillary the winner. The focus groups on both CNN and Fox, as well as data from Google, Facebook, Twitter, and any number of online polls, all suggested that Sanders had won. The media has been pushing the Clinton narrative since day 1, and Sanders has survived despite the media following the DNC plan, not because of any DNC support.
Everyone in the party would get the message that if they went within ten feet of this guy they would be bucking the party establishment and would not have party support come reelection time.
Which is probably why he has only 1 endorsement from Congress.
That's how major political parties work. They are engines of political control, not of democracy.
No shit.
The DNC missed their chance by killing his campaign before it started. Once his message was out and people were paying attention it was too late. They can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. They, like everyone else, underestimated the appeal of his message.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Didn't stop ol' Jeb from trying, and hell, there's always the example of Nixon. As for the Clinton vs Obama camps, do you really think she was happy with the SoS nod after Obama found the weakness in the caucus system and used it to take what would, definitely, have been Her Election? Obama was the only reason that was even a contest; Hillary would have slaughtered McCain, not just beat him. He could have been the 2016 nominee, and in all likelihood would have been a better and more effective president if he'd spent another eight years learning how Washington works (although eight years in the governorship would have been even better, except for Illinois governors' unpleasant tendency to end up in federal prison).
Look, maybe you know some people on the DNC, and I sure don't. But that's how it looks out here in flyover country.
Economically, the group most hurt by immigration is the blacks. Rationally, they should be supporting Trump.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
They're only asking for 1% of voters, though. I'll bet that you could get "None Of The Above" to poll well above 1% for a few weeks if you had decent write-in social media campaign.
Can he run as an independent? Can he join Bernie Sanders?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
This is the Democrat Party we are talking about. The coronation of Hillary for 2016 was decided years ago.
No, his main problem was nobody knew who the fuck he was outside of a few nerds.
This guy was less prepared to run a presidential campaign than that fucking idiot Rick Perry. And that makes him a bigger idiot than Rick Perry--now there's an accomplishment.
It doesn't matter how prepared he is. Because the Clintons have the party establishment tied up, Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her, and she has a lot of legacy antipathy that will make the general election harder for her. Bernie's okay, but I figure he basically was allowed to run because he was too crazy a prospect to be a real threat to the Clinton machine.
For the first time in 10 years, I feel that the Democrats will not elect a president. Hillary is not a shoe-in.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Actually they kept him out because of how sharp he is
No, they kept him out because he was not a serious, credible Presidential candidate. By his own admission, he was not a serious contender. Anyone who says that he's going to just pass some voter reform and then resign is honestly not worth our attention and is just wasting time and money. Not when we have a few dozen people running who are actually interested in the job.
The proposition is that 'The Left in America *despises* the common folk.'
This sounds like a great topic for Intelligence Squared Debates!
A lot more people would have known who he is if he had been allowed into the Democratic Party debates.
What was he supposed to talk about? Seriously, he stated he would pass a Constitutional Amendment reforming elections (somehow...) then resign. He was a single issue voter. What was he supposed to answer in a debate if someone asked him what he was going to do about ISIS? Or health care? Or religious freedom? "Well, I don't know, but let me talk about getting money out of elections." What a joke, of course he was shut out.
Yep. No liberal I know votes democrat because they trust the politicians or has any faith in them delivering on election promises. They vote democrat because if they dont the republicans would give big red button to a batshit insane lunatic.
Better a bad but sane president than a batshit crazy one. Good candidates dont get to be an option anymore.
And this is what's wrong with America. Everyone votes for the lesser of two evils, so the Rs and Ds have no reason to change. Only when you stop living in fear and vote third party will there be any change.
Stop! Dremel time!