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This discussion has been archived.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 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 msauve (701917) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:03PM (#34715256)
    You say that as if it's a bad thing. Why should the public pay for party primaries? If the parties don't want 5 (or 10...) people running, they should control and pay for their own internal selection process. There's no good reason to ask the public to pay for their internal politics. That would also eliminate the issue brought up here, which can work both ways.

    Better yet, adopt a preferential voting system [wikipedia.org].
  • 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.

  • Re:Okay, great. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by denis-The-menace (471988) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:16PM (#34715438)

    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...

  • 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 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.

  • 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 Zencyde (850968) <Zencyde@gmail.com> on Thursday December 30, 2010 @06:36PM (#34715696)
    Or we can have a no-party system and consider political parties to be criminal organizations. That might not be so bad. At least we'd stop arguing about whether the country looks better painted red or blue.
  • 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...

  • Unfortunately, that's bullshit. Elections effect the lives and wellbeing of millions if not billions of people. Every voter has a strong moral responsibility to vote in a way that actually leads to the best outcome. Usually, this means voting for the best electable candidate.
  • 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?

  • by netsharc (195805) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:04PM (#34716686)

    It's also very amusing to see how the Tea Party helped the Dems retain the Senate in 2010, because if the GOP had candidates other than the wicked witch of Delaware and what's her name in Nevada, they would've won the Senate as well as the House.

    Will it ever be Palin's time to be president? God I hope not, because it would mean 80% of the country has died, and the remaining 20% are the bottom 20% of the IQ range. Too bad, as you mentioned, the other faction the right wing (the ones you mentioned) have realized this as well, it would have been more amusing if they supported her enthusiastically up to November 2012. But the internal power struggle is interesting, hopefully there'll be 3 candidates to choose from in 2012 (Dem, GOP, Tea), with Palin sucking away the GOP nom's votes.

    I wonder what the Koch brothers are planning, will they still fund the Tea Party in 2 years?

  • http://stochasticdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/11/gerrymandering-compactness-and-toblers.html [blogspot.com]

    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.

  • by Americano (920576) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:23PM (#34716894)

    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.

  • by BZ (40346) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:48PM (#34717114)

    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...

  • 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 sumdumass (711423) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @10:27PM (#34717932) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, 2010 @11:53PM (#34718566)

    Unfortunately, he got that technically true historical tidbit from Glenn Beck's bizarre multi-century narrative, which is essentially an adaptation of the Protocols of the Elders (sed s/jew/progressive/g). Wilson was the figurehead of the massive Progressive conspiracy against Jesus's Constitution and the Gold Standard, in his world.

    Btw, it's a fascinating and complicated period in U.S. history, and it would be great if Beck's amateur "scholars" could look deeper, but I don't expect them to stray far from his strange book club.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday December 31, 2010 @01:52AM (#34719278) Journal

    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.

  • by rsborg (111459) on Friday December 31, 2010 @03:34PM (#34723792) Homepage

    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).

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...