Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Republicans Politics

Democrats Crowdsourcing To Vote Palin In Primaries 1128

Posted by timothy
from the can-you-see-the-primary-from-here? dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Crowdsourcing To Vote Palin In Primaries

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:53PM (#34715090)

    I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:58PM (#34715174)

      The process doesn't matter when the system is already f-ed up.

      •     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.

        • by peragrin (659227) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:36PM (#34715690)

          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)

          by fishbowl (7759)

          >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.

        • 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.

        • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:57PM (#34715942)
          I think it's pretty moot which republican is voted to office. If it's Romney or Huckabee, the oil industry and military contractors will continue to run the country, having built up favors with both during their campaigns. If it's Palin, the oil industry and military contractors will continue to run the country without her knowledge or consent.
        • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:48PM (#34716518) Homepage Journal

          This stunt could put Palin in office.

          No, it can't, and it won't even get Palin the nomination.

          Any of you who pay attention to right-wing media know that the word must have gone out to sink a Palin candidacy. There's been segments on every major conservative media talk show talking about how Palin shouldn't run and can't win. Even Fox News has been touting polls showing that Palin is extremely unpopular, even among Republicans. And one thing for sure, when you see a story this specific showing up all over Right-Wing Media, from Glenn Beck to Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson and Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, you know there's been a decision made in whatever brain trust send these whackos their talking points: It's just not Palin's time.

          Even if you don't pay attention to the right-wing swamp, you're bound to hear one of these stories as they dribble down the corporate media stalactite. Eventually, one of these stories will reach you out on the long tail. See if it doesn't and remember what I've said.

          At the moment, smart money is on the holy rollers Huckabee and Kasich as the golden boys of the "christian" "values" voters. As long as "what happens in the barn stays in the barn" they've got a good chance to pick up the nomination by the time the second round of early primaries happen.

          Fortunately, though, the tea party folks are feeling their oats so there will be a significant drooling moron effect that will make the GOP primaries very entertaining. But the suits who bankroll and run the whole shebang aren't going to let the Alaskan Christine O'Donnell get anywhere near the nomination. The teabaggers have served their purpose and now it's time for them to sit quietly on the back of the bus and behave.

    • by SerpentMage (13390) <[ChristianHGross] [at] [yahoo.ca]> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:02PM (#34715254)

      Its already been subverted, explain gerrymandering.

    • by Machtyn (759119)
      It absolutely perverts the process. It happened in 2008 with the Republicans, because their sails were completely deflated when Romney bowed out due to early votes where Dems could vote in the Repubs primary. Then the Rs tried to turn the table by making the Clinton/Obama race last longer than normal.

      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)

        by h4rr4r (612664)

        If she is smart, she will not run

        Are you mentally challenged?
        This woman is about a dumb as a box of hammers.

        • by geminidomino (614729) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:38PM (#34715720) Journal

          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)

          by FrootLoops (1817694)
          Calling Palin dumb is only half the story. She's an administrative disaster waiting to happen, but she's quite smart when it comes to playing to her supporters. That's why she's dangerous: she has the ability to stir up (the generally stupid) masses to support her. In every other way I've seen, she's an idiot, but in that important way, she's very smart. I thank God she seems divisive enough not to become president.
      • by Marcika (1003625) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:38PM (#34715724)

        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.

        • by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:52PM (#34715886)

          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.

          • 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)

              by dzelenka (630044)

              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.

              • 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.)

          • by Marcika (1003625) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:05PM (#34716048)

            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.

            • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:04PM (#34716684) Homepage

              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.

    • Too late. (Score:5, Informative)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:22PM (#34715510)

      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.

  • WCPGW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:54PM (#34715112)
    What could possibly go wrong?
    • Re:WCPGW (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bieeanda (961632) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:18PM (#34715462)
      Jesus, no shit. This is going to end in tears.
    • by siddesu (698447) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @09:16PM (#34717358)

      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.

  • by DocSavage64109 (799754) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:54PM (#34715114)
    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.
    • by peragrin (659227) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:59PM (#34715178)

      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.

      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:17PM (#34715440)

        Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.

        $65M is nothing to sneeze at [cnn.com]

    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:11PM (#34715364)

      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.

      • by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:15PM (#34716138)

        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...

    • 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

  • by gameboyhippo (827141) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:54PM (#34715118) Journal

    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.

  • by mbone (558574) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:56PM (#34715146)

    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.

    • by hedwards (940851) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:00PM (#34715208)
      One of Carter's biggest problems was that he let the Republicans have their way too frequently. Clinton had that problem as well, but was a better politicians and could maneuver around that.

      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.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:09PM (#34715346)

        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?

      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:34PM (#34715670) Journal

        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.

  • by dachshund (300733) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:59PM (#34715186)

    ... 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.

    • by morgauxo (974071)
      What drugs are involved in that context?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:18PM (#34715466)

      "she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate"

      Neither has Obama

      • by acoustix (123925) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:41PM (#34715762) Homepage

        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.

        • by localman (111171) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:49PM (#34716530) Homepage

          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)

          by protektor (63514)

          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.

  • by nutshell42 (557890) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:59PM (#34715192) Journal
    in 1933 the German Conservatives decided to support Hitler as chancellor to destroy the Nazi movement by confronting its ludicrous proposals with the cold reality of real life government.

    The Nazis decided that if their plans weren't realistic, reality would have to budge.

    Not saying (not even implying, hi there FoxNews) that Palin's a Nazi, will create a totalitarian state of some kind or other. I am saying that candidate Palin could become president Palin and Democrats would have noone but themselves to blame.

    • by hey! (33014) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:34PM (#34715666) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:44PM (#34715796)

      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?

    • by Marcika (1003625) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:22PM (#34716214)

      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".

  • Please, please, no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mean pun (717227) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:09PM (#34715344)

    Seems like a terribly bad idea to me. (1) It corrupts the US election process, because that's not how it was supposed to work. (2) It legitimizes non-democratic measures to counter this. (3) It increases the odds that Sara Palin becomes President. On the plus side, it does show a rather touching confidence in the common sense of the US voter (that, sadly, I cannot share).

    As a european my most direct concern is (3), because having an airhead as the leader of a large and powerful nation is bad for the whole world, but (1) and (2) are painful to watch too. To use a car analogy: of course my neighbor is free to use a sledgehammer on his own car, but it's still painful to watch.

  • President Palin.

  • by dirkdodgers (1642627) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:17PM (#34715448)

    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.

  • NOT AN ARTICLE (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmperorKagato (689705) <sakamura@gmail.com> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:21PM (#34715494) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by DrHanser (845654) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:26PM (#34715564) Homepage
    I don't understand the concern. This is almost exactly what happened in Delaware this past election. A crazy won, and the democrat, who might've otherwise lost, ended up winning by a landslide. The main difference is that it's the democrats initiating the process rather than letting it happen organically.
    • Delaware=sane (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hellfire (86129) <deviladv AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:02PM (#34716006) Homepage

      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)

    by 7-Vodka (195504) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:34PM (#34715668) Journal

    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.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:46PM (#34715836)

    If they don't think Obama can win, maybe they should run someone else.

  • by pfrCalif (819380) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:00PM (#34715980)

    "In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever ..

    Isn't it a little early to call something like this "the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing"? Not that it's the end-all metric of popularity, but it has 16 follows so far 25 facebook likes for god's sake. Slow down a bit before you hurt yourself.

  • by Xian97 (714198) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:25PM (#34716262)
    I remember Rush Limbaugh urging people to vote Hillary on Super Tuesday in the 2008 primaries to keep her in the race. They figured that the internal bickering would be detrimental to the Democrats so they wanted to keep that going as long as they could.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:02PM (#34716660)

    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?

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...