2008 Primaries Thread

i forgot to include "the patriarchy" in that list of institutions gabbneb trusts

don't forget "the system" TH

also, "society"

not to mention "they" and "them"

(big xpost) clinton/obama sounds ghastly to me - would obama be used as some kind of hope-envoy?. mcain/huckabee would give the dems a landslide so long as they don't fuck things up.

and Rolling Stone magazine

big ups the RIAA

tracer, didn't you essentially say upthread you don't like the people voting for the democratic nominee? do you support the party bosses making backroom deals? why do you suppose the primary system came about?

no, what i said was that i don't like not having an identifiable party leader. and i don't like having a bloody 1+ years of intramural fighting right before the election. in many - most? - other countries, the parties choose their own leaders. that way, people always know who the leader of your party is, and that person has gotten in the papers on every issue even if their party doesn't hold the presidency.

my perfect system? keep the primaries but hold them one year AFTER the elections rather than one year before. that way the nominee is chosen and decided, and can then lead the opposition effectively for three years up until the next election.

no, what i said was that i don't like not having an identifiable party leader

Tracer doesn't like the separation of powers, but does like party bosses

Here we go again: Diebold rigging claims

http://drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/diebold-and-new-hampshire/

i don't like having a bloody 1+ years of intramural fighting right before the election.

im actually starting to appreciate our endless election process as a proving ground for the candidates - it might actually make them better at their jobs

^on crack^

haha, Tracer you expatriate! Pols fall SO far in and out of fashion over 3 years. Plus the Dems change what they (say they) stand for every 6 months.

Hold a national primary 2 months before the election. Put us out of our misery.

our endless election process keeps our candidates (they sure ain't leaders) from doing their putative jobs.

yeah, you know what's wrong with the political season? it just isn't long enough!

thanks for the clarification tracer.

keep the primaries but hold them one year AFTER the elections rather than one year before. that way the nominee is chosen and decided, and can then lead the opposition effectively for three years up until the next election.

thats an interesting idea (way better than morbs'!). i am not personally interested nor do i have anything invested in dem or rep party politics, but yeah surely we can all agree how it works now is flawed esp. w/the compression of primary dates.

The discrepency may just be a matter of demographics: urban voters may like Hillary more than rural voters.

ya think?

so rural voters like obama better?

that's what the exit polls say

HRC's "i found my voice" line is nauseating. it's reasonably clear way of narrativising the rough couple days to her win in NH, but what a gross boomerist way to do it. you're a US senator in your 50s, and you've found your voice? just now?

this is the first time i've halfway agreed with MoDo, what a day...

Hil's like an Aaron Sorkin character!

oh god don't even bring that dipshit up

she invented the television? xp

yeah i don't actually like the executive branch as currently defined much at all, even before bush turned it into a bulldozing machine. it's too much like having a king. i think a famous american once made the same observation.

this is the first time i've halfway agreed with MoDo, what a day...

i know, right?

def the president has waaaaays too much power

lol blame lincoln and fdr RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

uh increase in exec branch is not just a libertarian issue

(should read exec branch POWER)

its really a byproduct of the system

you have three branches, two of which are made up of multiple guys. of course the one made up of one guy is gonna be better at seizing power while the others fight amongst themselves.

joeks bruv

Pols fall SO far in and out of fashion over 3 years. Plus the Dems change what they (say they) stand for every 6 months.

yeah, and this is part of the problem. if things get too far out of whack, like during the intervening three years the nominee gets caught masturbating with a rubber hosepipe and an orange, then there would be a mechanism for another primary -- in fact, such a mechanism probably already exists in and amongst the party rules. which, may i remind those here who seem to consider this whole circus as handed down on tablets, have no basis in law or the constitution and are therely purely for the benefit of the party who created them and can thus be changed if the party feels that it should.

we're getting a great national debate these days with our current system aren't we?

"i am the candidate for change"

"no, i am"

"my name is (x) and this is where i grew up"

CAN WE SKIP THIS PART PLEASE

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/1/9/D8U2DTF80/D8U2DTF80.jpg

Dude's starting to look like Jack from "Will & Grace".

tracer i don't get your wish for a solid and unambiguous 'party leader.' that just doesn't make sense in a non-parliamentary system

there are way more people in the exec branch than any other. if you don't like that, you don't like most of the regulatory state.

well whichever party has the presidency has a de facto leader, but the opposition gets none unless there's a particularly egregious, overweening bastard who just has to tell everybody what to do (i.e. gingrich) -- this guarantees either no real visible rational debate, or a debate between a president and a nutcase

uh gabby come on dont play dense there is one decider in the executive branch

sorry i forgot

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/leftcoastleaner/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg

a US party's eventual nominee for president is not the same thing as the opposition party's "shadow PM" or whatever equally-but-differently gnarly bullshit european parties arrive at

+ there are 50 state legislatures and governorships, big city mayoralties... there's just way more moving parts in the US, and more ideological range within the parties. it's a big country!

xp, well "well whichever party has the presidency has a de facto leader"... except in cases like this year! where the "party that has the presiden(t)" who is not a de facto leader, quite the opposite. how do they figure out who gets the ring next? how about... a big ugly series of public votes on the matter?

there's plenty to complain about w/r/t primaries -- "WHY IOWA AND NH ALL THE TIME JEEZ" -- but asking for it to be more efficient and rational just seems synoymous with making it less public and in the end less healthy

it's a big country!

lol

i wish we'd go back to the vp being 2nd place voter getter in the pres election. that'd make things interesting.

lol assassination

but then i was also hoping the 2000 election would have been contested by gore partly just for the chaos that would ensue.

that'd make things interesting.

yeah, we'd have 2 dozen extra presidential candidates

gr3at system you guys are designing here

anything that moves us even an inch closer to the destruction of the 2 major parties is cool with me, but I can't envision it till we're China's lackeys.

2 dozen presidential candidates? sounds good to me!