The American election - are you sick of it yet?

[Darth Wong]

Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.

Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.

[Havok]

It is not BROKEN. It is working EXACTLY as it is supposed to. Your original point is that you think the system is dumb, NOT that it is broken, and DEMs should be done with this process and be on to McCain already.

My original point is that the system is flawed. Are you through nitpicking over semantics and going to try actually refuting my point now? Or do you need more time in the kiddy pool?

Hmmm.. Well at least you finally got to the system being broken, of course not in your original post like you claimed. Just you whining about it and "OH NO the republicans are getting ammo!" which is what your point really is. You are scared that the big bad Republicans are going to beat the DEM nominee, no matter who it is because they've had all this extra time to prepare, and because you think whoever comes out is going to seem or be weaker, which is what the real bullshit is.

Take your shrill bleating elsewhere and come back to me when you're capable of actually refuting my point instead of throwing out strawmen to knock down. My point being that being the Democratic nomination process is horribly flawed, and thus broken. If it's not producing the desired results (ie - creating a candidate capable of winning), then it's not working properly. This is basic logic for anyone with more than three active brain-cells to rub together.

Fucking christ. I am saying the system is not flawed or broken, as it working EXACTLY as intended and and the process should be played out according to the rules laid out and not changed for over 50 years by the group using it.
You are saying it's flawed because... YOU don't like the outcome. The burden of proof is on you to show how the system is flawed and broken as you claim, even though you have already said it is working. It is YOUR OPINION that the process will not create a strong candidate. It is your responsibility to back your claims up not mine.

[Havok]

Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.

Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.

OK. I see your point. What I meant about someone like Obama, wasn't so much his monetary status, but more his lack of perceived qualifications.

[Guardsman Bass]

Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.

Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.

Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.

[General Zod]

Fucking christ. I am saying the system is not flawed or broken, as it working EXACTLY as intended and and the process should be played out according to the rules laid out and not changed for over 50 years by the group using
it.

Yet the fact remains that there are far more efficient methods a candidate can be chosen. Trying to cling to the delusion that our system is somehow perfect is laughable.

You are saying it's flawed because... YOU don't like the outcome. The burden of proof is on you to show how the system is flawed and broken as you claim, even though you have already said it is working. It is YOUR OPINION that the process will not create a strong candidate. It is your responsibility to back your claims up not mine.

Remind me again how a system is actually working if it doesn't produce a candidate who can win? The fact that several polls suggest a significant chunk of supporters from either Hillary or Obama will defect to the Republicans is just one symptom of this. Also, see: Michigan & Florida, which Shillary keeps claiming she "won" despite Obama not even being on the ticket, and is actively trying to reinstate so she can win them uncontested without fair competition. So much for the system working.

[Darth Wong]

Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.

Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.

Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.

You know, if the arbiter of the best candidate selection process is that it must produce exactly the same outcome as the current process, then yeah, I guess you can't change it. That's a pretty stupid criterion, though.

[Broomstick]

I'm so sick of it I'm not even reading the rest of this thread.

Normally, since the Indiana primary usually means jackshit, we're ignored until at least summer but THIS time our votes might actually mean something so we're getting hammered this time around. Thank Og I can vote tomorrow morning when the polling place opens down the street and get a smidgeon of relief until the fall.

Ugh.

[Havok]

Fucking christ. I am saying the system is not flawed or broken, as it working EXACTLY as intended and and the process should be played out according to the rules laid out and not changed for over 50 years by the group using
it.

Yet the fact remains that there are far more efficient methods a candidate can be chosen. Trying to cling to the delusion that our system is somehow perfect is laughable.

Certainly there are more efficient ways. Please find where I said it was perfect. I said it is working as designed, good or bad, and it is. Can you dispute that or not. Answer.

You are saying it's flawed because... YOU don't like the outcome. The burden of proof is on you to show how the system is flawed and broken as you claim, even though you have already said it is working. It is YOUR OPINION that the process will not create a strong candidate. It is your responsibility to back your claims up not mine.

Remind me again how a system is actually working if it doesn't produce a candidate who can win?

Again, your say so.

The fact that several polls suggest a significant chunk of supporters from either Hillary or Obama will defect to the Republicans is just one symptom of this.

Yes and polls are absolutely correct and infallible and NEVER change.

Also, see: Michigan & Florida, which Shillary keeps claiming she "won" despite Obama not even being on the ticket, and is actively trying to reinstate so she can win them uncontested without fair competition. So much for the system working.

Something that hasn't even happened yet.

Look Zod, just stop whining about it. I get it. You don't like it. You don't think any outcome except Hillary dropping out right now is going to allow the DEMs a shot at winning with Obama, and they have zero shot with Clinton. I get it.

[Havok]

Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.

Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.

You know, if the arbiter of the best candidate selection process is that it must produce exactly the same outcome as the current process, then yeah, I guess you can't change it. That's a pretty stupid criterion, though.

Do you think you could put up how you think a better system would work? I'm curious to see exactly how you would do it.

[General Zod]

Certainly there are more efficient ways. Please find where I said it was perfect. I said it is working as designed, good or bad, and it is. Can you dispute that or not. Answer.

I don't give a fuck if it's working as designed you illiterate moron, my whole fucking point is that it's designed badly. So pull your thick head out of your ass and stop strawmanning me.

Again, your say so.

What the fuck else is the point of having an election system if not to produce candidates that can win? Or are you just going to repeat yourself like a broken record again?

Yes and polls are absolutely correct and infallible and NEVER change.

Polls are data indicating a trend you stupid retard. Which is more than you have going for your asinine claim of "lalalala teh system is working perfectly!!11!1!"

Something that hasn't even happened yet.

It doesn't matter if it's happened or not yet dipshit. The fact that she's trying and seems to have some degree of support for it indicates that checks and balances to try and keep some sense of fairness are not doing their job.

[Terralthra]

Would the nation not be better served by parties which simply select their own candidate to promote policies the whole party generally agrees upon, and having more parties in order to satisfy peoples' desire to see more variety in candidates?

This focus upon the leadership candidate as an individual, as opposed to merely being the head of a party, is half the problem.

I can't remember the particular political scientist who did the work, but there's a hypothesis out there that predicts that any first/furthest-past-the-post electoral system will eventually turn into a system dominated by two opposed monolithic parties. Without proportional representation or instant run-off voting, fringes are so cowed by the worst possibilities of the other binary party winning that defection to a third/other party is considered wasting one's vote.

And that's exactly what people said to voters for Perot when he ran as a third candidate.

[aerius]

I was already sick of the US election by last Thanksgiving, the Canadian Thanksgiving that is. I've hit the point where I refuse to watch the news on TV, seeing US election "news" literally makes me sick, if I lived in the US I'd likely have either slit my wrists or gone on a killing spree by now.

[ArmorPierce]

This primary is looking like a boxing match that has gone on for far too long. Presidential election is around the corner and the democrats have yet to stop fighting each other to decide to put up against the opposing team. Instead they are busy fighting each other with one of them throwing plenty of cheap shots and dirty moves and is just hurting themselves in the end.

[Guardsman Bass]

Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.

Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.

You know, if the arbiter of the best candidate selection process is that it must produce exactly the same outcome as the current process, then yeah, I guess you can't change it. That's a pretty stupid criterion, though.

Nobody's saying that "it must produce the same outcome" is the best standard - we're using it as a standard with which to compare alternative proposals. It most likely hurts people who would be coming from "unknown" territory, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Not the most impressive candidates, but the example is still there - and I think it's a bad thing in that you can lose some potentially good candidates who don't have a national presence to attract the money and support for a nation-wide campaign.

[Darth Wong]

Do you think you could put up how you think a better system would work? I'm curious to see exactly how you would do it.

You know I've been talking about ideas for possible changes all throughout this thread, right?

[Darth Wong]

Nobody's saying that "it must produce the same outcome" is the best standard - we're using it as a standard with which to compare alternative proposals. It most likely hurts people who would be coming from "unknown" territory, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Not the most impressive candidates, but the example is still there - and I think it's a bad thing in that you can lose some potentially good candidates who don't have a national presence to attract the money and support for a nation-wide campaign.

And it's a bad thing that the campaign drags on for so fucking long, costs so much money, and is so subject to manipulations and influences that have nothing to do with picking the best candidate. For that matter, it's a bad thing that the personality of the candidate is so important, when (to my way of thinking), the candidate should merely represent the intentions of the party. Why is it so important to be capable of causing rapid changes to the popularity of candidates in mid-process? Yet again, it looks like somebody is taking a consequence of the current system, assuming it's a "benefit" despite the lack of any apparent connection to the goal, and then decrying an alternative for lack of this "benefit".

Also: if it's so important to have "democratic input" into the inner processes of each party, why don't the parties allow member voting on their actual policies? Why don't the Republicans hold a vote to see if people think they should drop the anti-gay thing? Why don't Democrats hold a vote to see if people think they should drop the anti-gun thing? This is not about being more "democratic"; it's about clinging to tradition.

[Broomstick]

Voted.

In the primary, not just this thread.

Now leave me alone until November.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yeah, I think this is a fucking farce. Can't the country implode or decide already? This thing is no longer funny (though the comic is).

[weemadando]

That reminds me. Must check the TMW archive.

[Havok]

Do you think you could put up how you think a better system would work? I'm curious to see exactly how you would do it.

You know I've been talking about ideas for possible changes all throughout this thread, right?

Yeah, but I'm lazy and want you to put it all in one post for me.

[Vympel]

That reminds me. Must check the TMW archive.

[X The Eliminator Music]Blasphemer!!!!! How can you not check TMW every week!!!![/X The Eliminator Music]

[montypython]

I was already sick of the US election by last Thanksgiving, the Canadian Thanksgiving that is. I've hit the point where I refuse to watch the news on TV, seeing US election "news" literally makes me sick, if I lived in the US I'd likely have either slit my wrists or gone on a killing spree by now.

My sentiments exactly, it's days like this that I think that things would be better when the next revolution comes to line up all the b@st@rds on the wall for the firing squad...