The American election - are you sick of it yet?

[weemadando]

I know that it's important, but fucking hell, I don't need hours of coverage each day here in Australia.

So, what do you think?

[Darth Wong]

I'm not just sick of the American 2008 election; I'm sick of the entire American political system. To say it's fucked up would be a gigantic understatement.

Seriously, in what other system would someone like Rush Limbaugh be playing a significant role in determining who the "left-wing" candidate for president will be?

[J]

I can't take it anymore, just get the stupid election over and done with before I throw something hard & heavy through my TV. I can't believe there's still another half year of this crap to go.

[Mr Bean]

I know that it's important, but fucking hell, I don't need hours of coverage each day here in Australia.

So, what do you think?

I think your national news media needs to be loaded into a cannon and shot into the sun for covering nothing. However considering how much America impacts the world (Re:Fucks up the world) who gets to hold power in America is a big deal.

If your news media zero'd in on the "Tuesday's" IE did allot of coverage on and only on days of actual voting, and perhaps the day before it could be forgiven, Getting swept up in the US false horse race is inexcusable

[Darth Wong]

Even on the handful of news shows which dare to say that the Emperor has no clothes, nobody is willing to speak the truth, which is that the American political process is too democratic.

There's this childish notion in America that if some democracy is good, then more democracy must always be better. But the fact is that a complete Athenian-style democracy would be completely incapable of functioning on the scale of a modern nation-state. That's why America is a Republic, not a democracy. That's why more democracy is not necessarily better.

Imagine if American federal election campaigns were limited by law to a length of 3 months, with all political ad spending outside of that time-frame being outlawed (not this half-assed loophole-ridden McCain-Feingold bullshit, but a straight ban). Can anyone honestly say that the result would be worse than the present system? It would certainly be a helluva lot cheaper, and less tedious.

The American government is in a constant election cycle, which means that they spend all of their time politicking, and almost none of it governing. Why do Americans think this is a good thing? You know that as soon as this shit is over, there will be a brief honeymoon for the new President and then the election cycle will start all over again, for the congressional mid-term elections in 2 years.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I confess I'm a poor sport about this and a bit of a fairweather fan. I was enjoying catching a glimpse of Obamamania here and there while I was out and about, since I don't watch television, but now that the media's turned on him, I just feel bitter and angry about the whole process.

[J]

The American government is in a constant election cycle, which means that they spend all of their time politicking, and almost none of it governing. Why do Americans think this is a good thing?

The excuse I keep hearing is it keeps the politician too busy and deadlocked to pass any stupid bills to erode their freedoms, spend money on stupid stuff or mess with the holy Constitution. I've honestly lost track of how many times I've been told by Americans that a deadlocked government where everyone's too busy fighting for their position is the best government they can hope to have.

Like so many other things, it doesn't work that way in real life.

[Darth Wong]

The American government is in a constant election cycle, which means that they spend all of their time politicking, and almost none of it governing. Why do Americans think this is a good thing?

The excuse I keep hearing is it keeps the politician too busy and deadlocked to pass any stupid bills to erode their freedoms, spend money on stupid stuff or mess with the holy Constitution. I've honestly lost track of how many times I've been told by Americans that a deadlocked government where everyone's too busy fighting for their position is the best government they can hope to have.

Like so many other things, it doesn't work that way in real life.

So true. I've heard that line of bullshit too. Does it not occur to these fools that deadlocked government does not stop the passage of bills? As evidence, one can simply list all of the bills that have been passed by supposedly deadlocked governments. All deadlocked government does is ensure that in order to pass a bill, you need to make deals. Lots of deals, which is the exact process they're so upset about.

[Qwerty 42]

I'd be curious to see if, say, Abraham Lincoln would have been able to carry out a campaign on the scale that Clinton and Obama are carrying out now.

[Invictus ChiKen]

I am frustrated and just ready for this to be over with.

I switched my party affiliation to Green Recently as the DNC can't seem to do SHIT!

Damnit this should have been resolved and we have our candidate running already...

[Darth Wong]

I'd be curious to see if, say, Abraham Lincoln would have been able to carry out a campaign on the scale that Clinton and Obama are carrying out now.

Abraham Lincoln would never have gotten elected in the present-day climate.

Really, Ronald Reagan was the perfect example of what Americans expect in a modern presidential candidate. Warm, friendly, jocular, and good at playing to their base instincts in order to trick them into uncritically accepting the things he does. And if he ever gets caught red-handed, he can just play the role of the charming old grandfather and smile while saying that he doesn't remember a damned thing.

Really, Gonzalez did exactly the same thing Reagan did. His problem was that he didn't look ignorant or senile enough to pull it off. We didn't believe him when he said he didn't remember anything. We believed Reagan.

[DrMckay]

I am sick and tired of the media attempting to create "News" and controversy to boost their ratings and revenue. It is an insult to the legacy of my grandfather who was a broadcast pioneer in the news when they still had integrity.

[Havok]

I am frustrated and just ready for this to be over with.

I switched my party affiliation to Green Recently as the DNC can't seem to do SHIT!

Good job. Now instead of a party that can't do shit, you have a party that will never have the chance to do shit.

Damnit this should have been resolved and we have our candidate running already...

I thought the Green Party already had their candidate? Oh I see.
Why should it be resolved already? Every state hasn't voted for the candidate they wanted. The Democratic Convention hasn't been reached yet. There are two candidates that are still running. There is no clear winner yet. WHY should the system that is in place be circumvented?

[Havok]

P.S. If you don't like it, turn of your fucking T.V.. The Networks, in ALL countries make and schedule shows based on what people tune into. If you keep watching it, even in disgust, they are going to keep showing it.

[Hawkwings]

I confess I'm a poor sport about this and a bit of a fairweather fan. I was enjoying catching a glimpse of Obamamania here and there while I was out and about, since I don't watch television, but now that the media's turned on him, I just feel bitter and angry about the whole process.

No no no! You're supposed to smile and take your pills like a good little voter! Here, I'll share mine!

gulp

While the politicking is bad enough this media coverage is just... absurd. I'm half tempted to start my own media corporation just so I can make up news and twist reality so much that things happen the way I want. Actually, I'm really tempted.

[Hawkwings]

Addendum: Newshour with Jim Lehrer (Although Jim's been gone more and more) is basically the only news show I watch anymore.

[General Zod]

I thought the Green Party already had their candidate? Oh I see.
Why should it be resolved already? Every state hasn't voted for the candidate they wanted. The Democratic Convention hasn't been reached yet. There are two candidates that are still running. There is no clear winner yet. WHY should the system that is in place be circumvented?

Anyone but a blind, ignorant fool can see that Shillary has no chance of winning without pulling off back-room deals. Why should the system be blindly conformed to when it clearly does more harm than good by giving the Republicans more fodder material for the general election? That's pretty much the only thing dragging it out for so long accomplishes when the Democratic party should be focusing on the general election and turning their attention to the Republican candidate by now.

[Fire Fly]

Only in the US does a political campaign need to start out two years in advance with at least a dozen debates, campaign media saturation, and hundreds of millions of dollars; part of the problem is the short attention span of the average voter. The current crop of candidates all officially began running at the end of 2006 or beginning of 2007 and there are people who still don't know who they are today. When the elections will be finally held in late 2008 and 2009 starts, the 2010 house/senate candidates will have already started their campaigning and fund raising. I read somewhere that most candidates, elected or running, need to do fund raising almost every week just to have enough to run or re-run.

[Havok]

I thought the Green Party already had their candidate? Oh I see.
Why should it be resolved already? Every state hasn't voted for the candidate they wanted. The Democratic Convention hasn't been reached yet. There are two candidates that are still running. There is no clear winner yet. WHY should the system that is in place be circumvented?

Anyone but a blind, ignorant fool can see that Shillary has no chance of winning without pulling off back-room deals. Why should the system be blindly conformed to when it clearly does more harm than good by giving the Republicans more fodder material for the general election? That's pretty much the only thing dragging it out for so long accomplishes when the Democratic party should be focusing on the general election and turning their attention to the Republican candidate by now.

Uh no. The system that the Democrats set up for THEMSELVES allows this. If Clinton wins the rest of the primaries and the SDs decide she is the best option to beat McCain then so be it. It is how they chose to do this process. If the Republicans didn't already have their candidate would this even be an issue? No.

[General Zod]

Uh no. The system that the Democrats set up for THEMSELVES allows this. If Clinton wins the rest of the primaries and the SDs decide she is the best option to beat McCain then so be it. It is how they chose to do this process. If the Republicans didn't already have their candidate would this even be an issue? No.

Did you even bother reading anything I wrote? The fact that the system allows this does not mean dragging on the preliminaries is a good idea.

[Havok]

Uh no. The system that the Democrats set up for THEMSELVES allows this. If Clinton wins the rest of the primaries and the SDs decide she is the best option to beat McCain then so be it. It is how they chose to do this process. If the Republicans didn't already have their candidate would this even be an issue? No.

Did you even bother reading anything I wrote? The fact that the system allows this does not mean dragging on the preliminaries is a good idea.

I read everything you wrote. I didn't say it was a good idea and I don't care. If Clinton still has a chance to win, why should she drop out? Why are we afraid of finishing out the process.

[General Zod]

I read everything you wrote. I didn't say it was a good idea and I don't care. If Clinton still has a chance to win, why should she drop out? Why are we afraid of finishing out the process.

Except she doesn't have a chance to win you moron. It's mathematically impossible for her to win except with illicit back-room deals. What part of this do you not comprehend? You clearly aren't bothering to think this over in anything resembling a critical fashion beyond "zomg we must work according to the system teh system cause it can't possibly be wrong lolol!!!111!".

[Darth Wong]

I read everything you wrote. I didn't say it was a good idea and I don't care. If Clinton still has a chance to win, why should she drop out? Why are we afraid of finishing out the process.

Does the term "is/ought fallacy" mean anything to you?

[FSTargetDrone]

I'm sick not so much of the election but of the extraneous bullshit like the "Reverend Wright Controversy." I'm sick of the endless discussion of issues that do not matter. There isn't nearly enough discussion about the really important issues.

[Lusankya]

Why should it be resolved already? Every state hasn't voted for the candidate they wanted. The Democratic Convention hasn't been reached yet. There are two candidates that are still running. There is no clear winner yet. WHY should the system that is in place be circumvented?

Why should you have such a stupid system in place to begin with? Even something as simple as having all of the primaries *gasp* on the same day in every state would make it a lot less painful for everyone involved. Seriously, when you spend a third of a year just on one single vote, something's seriously wrong with your system.