Democrats Crowdsourcing To Vote Palin In Primaries 1128
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."
As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, Insightful)
The process doesn't matter when the system is already f-ed up.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (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.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>There are also a lot of people who swear by the phrase "never vote for the incumbent"
People say this, but by and large on election day, they end up voting for their incumbent. Incumbents are bad and should be voted out, with the exception of yours, apparently.
This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure who he was, but it's made me recast these kinds of things in a different light.
Re:This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... (Score:4, Informative)
Eugene V. Debs [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... (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.
Re:This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fwiw, at least my high school history book (15 years ago) had a page-long section or so on Debs (not to mention a page-long section on the Espionage Act of 1917).
That was compared to about 2-3 pages total on US involvement in WWI...
Re:This phrase is the one that's stuck with me ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Fuck freedom of speech and democracy if it means that the wrong guy can be elected.
A People's History is depressing as all hell. (Score:4, Interesting)
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" [amazon.com]. 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).
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
I always vote against the incumbent unless the alternative is considerably worse. Unfortunately, the alternative is always considerably worse.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want us to declare war on Columbia, Cambodia, and Canada, because they all "sound the same"
If you guys end up invading & annexing Canada, I would like to point out that it would pretty much guarantee that the Democrats would run both houses plus be in the white house for the next 100 years. Just something to consider: Canadian Conservative = American Democrat.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you need to worry. The American experience is that the second act for people like here tends to not be so pretty.
She'll be around, but only barely. She's already losing popularity fast. The tea party hangs on because these are people who are constitutionally incapable of admitting (or understanding) that they've been hoodwinked. There are such people all across the political spectrum, but Palin's popularity is unique in that it's made up entirely of such folks, for whom self-certainty is the thing of which they are most certain. The thing they know for sure they are right about is that they are right about being right. They are put in this world to plague the rest of us.
Eheh, never a need to worry (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Learn to spell, moran.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its already been subverted, explain gerrymandering.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
As a conservative first and Repub second, I see Palin as an excellent endorser. If she is smart, she will not run. If she was a VP, she would then have the experience to step into office. As it is, she'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If she is smart, she will not run
Are you mentally challenged?
This woman is about a dumb as a box of hammers.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
He maybe he a liar and cheat but he graduated HLS with highest honors and was the editor of their law review. No way he is a dummy.
I doubt he misquotes the constitution, he is an expert on constitutional law. Please provide evidence. Also please show any evidence for his religious claims that change.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
As an independent voter, I would agree that both parties are corrupt and controlled by the extremes who self delude themselves into thinking they are the national majority.
However, you simply cannot compare the raw intelligence of Obama to Palin. Obama went to Harvard. He was president of their law review. Even without attempting to mention anything negative about Palin, that is a high standard to match. He may do things I disagree with, but that does not mean he's stupid.
Please note the difference, we could use more voters who understood the difference between people who have different beliefs and values than us versus people who have a low intelligence.
I also disagree with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and Rush. But, I wouldn't say any of them are stupid.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (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.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average
That's just selection bias. Stupid people rarely achieve positions that give them the power to commit acts of great evil. Dubya was an exception -- one we can largely write off to nepotism -- and not the rule.
The US electorate is doing its level best to change that rule, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although he sounds stupid, "Dubya" had a measured IQ of 132. If you consider that stupid, then I tip my hat to your loft intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
Citation needed, although I don't think Dubya was as personally stupid as most people (Democrats?) do. Just incurious, anti-intellectual, and incapable of giving a fuck. And an asshole. And still not one of our smarter presidents. (Obama, Clinton, Nixon, Wilson, etc.)
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, you bring up an interesting point. Most dems and liberal say bush is stupid, that he somehow masterminded and orchestrated ripping the election off in 2000, they he lied and go us into a war no one wanted, and all sorts of other feats that totally a completely dispel the idea that he wasn't smart.
I generally ask them what it makes them if someone as dumb as Bush was able to pull so much shit off with them watching. But hey, you broght up a point, maybe the conspiracy isn't calling a brilliant man stupid, but a smart guy acting stupid in order to throw off the people watching him. That's brilliance in the work.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (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.
Given that you can (theoretically) choose among the best and brightest of more than 200 million people, it might not be too much to ask for a candidate to have been at least in the top 5 or 10% in his classroom -- in order for them to understand the issues at least.
By your criteria - excluding academic and political experience from a candidate's CV and disregarding intellect - ex-CEOs Dick Cheney and George W. Bush should have been the most competent stewards of the US economy out of the past few decades' leaders... Look how that turned out.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that you can (theoretically) choose among the best and brightest of more than 200 million people, it might not be too much to ask for a candidate to have been at least in the top 5 or 10% in his classroom -- in order for them to understand the issues at least.
Maybe if 90-95% in the class room don't understand the issues, that is your problem - it certainly seems like it would making democracy difficult. I think the point is that as an executive you are getting executive summaries, you're not looking at the mass of raw data spotting the patterns and connections with your superior intellect. You are more setting the overall strategy, and everyone that's read a strategy document knows it's quite well rounded and not an exact science. And you're delegating, so it's not like you'll be the one executing the strategy which means it's very important that you communicate well what and how you will do. And not to mention why you're doing it for motivation, inspiration, support and best execution. Those things don't come very naturally from academia, I know many academics who'd be brilliant in a white coat in the corner of a research lab but very poor leaders.
As for political experience that is perhaps a necessary skill but quite frankly political broilers that have been raised only on ideology sometimes have very little attachment to reality. Particularly here in Norway on the left side we have socialists that have never been neither workers nor capitalists, they're just idealists and ideologists that have read about how it ought to work. Granted, she was leader of the youth party and not the whole party but when you want "equal pay for work" - not "equal pay for equal work" mind you, people asked - then it's obvious you've never had a non-political job in your life. So while I'm not saying I agree with the GP I too would generally be skeptical to someone that's never done anything but academics and politics. But then people only have so many years and you can spend very many of the in the "real world" learning very little except how to do boring menial labor.
Considering he was probably handed the worst situation a president has started with since the Great Depression, I think he's still doing decent. I think people want a bit more from him than is humanly possibly even for the POTUS.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too late. (Score:5, 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.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea let's have a 1 party dictatorship instead.
Some say it's already one party -- the Corporate party.
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Republican's didn't force anything down anyone's throat. Stop stooping to such inflaming rhetoric. The people voted the Democrats out in November because they didn't like where they were taking the country. So now you guys freak out and say everyone is against you so you have to play games to trick people? Give me a break.
All you are trying to do is divide the country and make it them against us. That does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. By this kind of talk you have made it clear you don't care wh
Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they did. They (and the other participant of the two-party system) have introduced and passed many things which enforce the two-party system to the detriment of the people they claim to be representing.
Stop stooping to such inflaming rhetoric. The people voted the Democrats out in November because they didn't like where they were taking the country.
Oh, I get it, you didn't read what I actually wrote. I'm not talking about anyone currently in office. But you heard someone say "Republican" that wasn't followed by "are the best" and attacked like an illiterate rabid dog. Try reading my post again without frothing at the mouth. Go ahead, I'll wait.
If you want to say it is ok to game the system because you have no chance of winning fairly then go ahead,
You are assuming lots of incorrect things, like that I want Obama in office or that there is no chance of winning without the games, and all sorts of implications that I simply never said. Again, deep breaths, a little Valium, and read my post again, slowly, twice if you need to.
You are just making yourself more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.
The party system is the problem. The fix includes screwing with the system. I am part of the solution. You are part of the problem, with some mindless zombie attachment to some party in particular.
The actual US debt is $202 Trillion.
Oh, and that's a lie. That's not a debt. "If I drop past your house tomorrow, I'll give you $10" isn't a debt. You can't count my Medicare and Social Security as a debt, as you have to fabricate that number. Those could be stripped tomorrow with a simple act of Congress. That's not a debt. It may be a promise, but it most certainly isn't a debt. It's only a debt to the people that are insane and want to lie for effect. Oh, and that number doesn't count the fact that there is income to offset those promises such that with only the smallest tweaks in collection rates, ages, and such, the overall system will have no debt. But why bother with reality when we can lie about the problem for effect? Again, you are the problem, not a solution.
Re: (Score:3)
I take it, then, that you don't think President Obama can win unless he's running against somebody unelectable? If he's that unpopular, maybe it's better for the country (if not for the short-term interests of the Democrats.) if he's not re-elected.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want to see that insane woman anywhere near the white house, ever. We've already seen the damage a village idiot for president can do, why the hell would anyone want to elect another one? I don't want a president I can have a beer with. I want someone competent enough to run a country without demolishing the constitution or looting the middle class.
I thought this was a ruse to elect Obama? Does W even drink beer??
WCPGW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WCPGW (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask Tiberius Gracchus (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Large percentage?
Why in the hell is the moonbat myth believer far right wing a major percentage in a first world nation?
I am not disagreeing, I am just in utter shock each time this is brought up. What is in the water in these places?
Re:WCPGW (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the fact that it's not obvious what the actual candidate said and what a comedian impersonating her said says a lot more.
Why give them the publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why give them the publicity (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.
Re:Why give them the publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.
$65M is nothing to sneeze at [cnn.com]
Re:Why give them the publicity (Score:5, 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.
Re:Why give them the publicity (Score:4, 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.
Re:Why give them the publicity (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...
Re: (Score:3)
This is not really Democrats per se. This is a grassroots effort not backed by either party.
It is important to distinguish between the two. Political primaries in the US are dominated by theatrics and off-beat ideas for how to gain an advantage. These efforts primarily emerge from members of the base, who are not always ideologically aligned with the party so much as an ideal they want the party to represent. This is where groups like the Log Cabin republicans come from - they want to be Republicans despite
Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primaries? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (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...
Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (Score:4, Interesting)
Better yet, adopt a preferential voting system [wikipedia.org].
Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (Score:5, 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.
Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (Score:4, Interesting)
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. It's getting really old hearing the same tired talking points in response to every issue that comes up. Even more so when the talking points involve doing the same things which led the the problem that they're trying to fix.
Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (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?
Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
/eyeroll
Yeah, because their recent period of controlling both houses and the White House told us nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
What these Democrats don't realize... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What these Democrats don't realize... (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
Re:What these Democrats don't realize... (Score:4, Informative)
It's really sad that the parent was modded down for the truth. Even if you voted for Obama you had to know in your heart that he had absolutely no executive experience. He was a community organizer, a state senator who often voted "present", and wasn't even in the US Senate for a full term before becoming the POTUS.
I'm not bashing Obama. I'm simply speaking (typing) the truth.
Re:What these Democrats don't realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything you say is true, but the parent comment was stupid because Obama certainly demonstrated "the knowledge and/or responsibility one would expect of a Presidential candidate". If you don't think so, you've never paid attention to anything he's said or written. Whether he's been an effective leader is another issue, and that will be decided a bit further down the road, but he is certainly knowledgable and responsible, even if you don't agree with him.
I can say many Republicans are knowledgable and responsible even if I don't agree with them. I cannot say that about Palin. It's always nice when people can tell the difference between things like disagreement, corruption, and idiocy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people forget he originally said he wouldn't run for President because he didn't have enough experience. He turned right around and started running for President about a year and half in to being a Senator. So much for truth and honesty.
Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been there, done that (Score:4, Interesting)
Now what's really interesting is that an act of purported terrorism (the burning of the Reichstag building) convinced the Reichstag to give Hitler temporary "emergency" powers.
We already have a lot of people who've bought into the idea that in "war" (defined as just about any kind of national security problem) the President's Constitutional powers are just about unconditional. Those people are nearly all Republicans -- I don't want to paint *all* Republicans with this brush, but there is an extreme wing of the party that believes this. Palin is part of that wing.
I don't think Palin beating Obama is likely, once people see them head to head in debate, even if Palin plays the expectations game. But I don't think her beating Obama is entire implausible given the right conditions.
Re:Been there, done that (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.
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?
Re:Been there, done that (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".
Godwin argument (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Please, please, no (Score:5, 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.
There is one very simple reason not to do this: (Score:5, Insightful)
President Palin.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that at that moment, satire will be dead, and the joke's on the whole world.
Re: (Score:3)
Further reduces influence of independent Americans (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
NOT AN ARTICLE (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?
Chistine O'Donnell and Delaware (Score:4, Informative)
Delaware=sane (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Not a good strategy (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.
That's really fucked up. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't think Obama can win, maybe they should run someone else.
Hold your Horses there SharpieMarker (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hold your Horses there SharpieMarker (Score:4, Insightful)
"I have no idea why this is on Slashdot. It's not technology news. It's not even news at all."
907 replies, thus far. That's why.
Slashdot has learned that topics that guarantee a left/right flame war attract lots of page views.
Crossfire generated big ratings on CNN with its confrontational style. Now, most of the available cable news channels air similar.
If the public wants crap rather than quality, it's crap and pap they get.
Didn't the Republicans do the same thing? (Score:3)
Here's how Palin wins (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Okay, great. (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...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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. W
Re: (Score:3)
Religious bigotry is alive and well, I see...
(Disclaimer: I think that Palin isn't presidential material either..)
Re: (Score:3)