[Anomander]

He may win the nomination (somehow) by appealing to evangelicals and uneducated crazies but he can't honestly think those fringe groups can bring him a presidency.

[McLovin]

Indeed they cannot, because they would vote for the R no matter who it was. Independents are where it's at, but they don't vote in primaries. So you have this ridiculous system where the candidate has to tack to the extreme right/left to get nominated, then back to the center to get elected. How do you maintain intellectual integrity under those conditions? It's just really become a joke.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Here, obviously a different system, but the party leaders are elected by members of the party...not the public. Seems a more practical thing really. Peers in the political arena picking a rep from amongst them that is most capable of representing party interests. Of course, our PM is still technically a member of parliament like any other, he's just provided with some extra authority.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I can't understand why it is set up the way it is in the states. It doesn't make any sense that you would have to run two campaigns to win an election, to two completely different audiences, and flip your whole approach around to appeal to each.

It really only speaks to the ultimate winner's skill in public relations. Not their ability to lead anything.

[McLovin]

No doubt it, like so much else here, goes back to the days of slavery in the South, when Southerners feared the more populous North would force an abolitionist nominee down their throat.

[worry]

Most things here do come back to that, by one road or another, that's very true. But I don't think the two parties are reflectons of each other...the Republicans, you can say have to do that hard right thing and then return to the center. The Dems are much more fragmented, and it's like playing hopscotch during the primaries. It's still a bit surreal and ridiculous, but it's a different kind of game. It makes Dems a little more schizophrenic but also substantially less extremist during the primaries. A lot of special interests makes Dems a bit mushy, while R's much fewer special interests makes them more clear-cut and rigid but also more oligarchal (by nature of those special interests).

[Terez]

Anomander, on 28 February 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

He may win the nomination (somehow) by appealing to evangelicals and uneducated crazies but he can't honestly think those fringe groups can bring him a presidency.

I tend to think he knows that. We all know it. But he's shown himself so far to be pretty delusional, unless he was just being lazy, or trolling with his comments on euthanasia and the like. Sometimes I think he is just in it at this point for name-recognition. That alone was enough to make Romney the front-runner this time around.

McLovin, on 28 February 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Indeed they cannot, because they would vote for the R no matter who it was. Independents are where it's at, but they don't vote in primaries. So you have this ridiculous system where the candidate has to tack to the extreme right/left to get nominated, then back to the center to get elected. How do you maintain intellectual integrity under those conditions? It's just really become a joke.

It is a joke, but some candidates can make it look pretty natural. Like Newt. But Mitt Romney is probably the worst candidate I have ever seen. His desperation is really hard to watch.

McLovin, on 28 February 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

No doubt it, like so much else here, goes back to the days of slavery in the South, when Southerners feared the more populous North would force an abolitionist nominee down their throat.

worrywort, on 28 February 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Most things here do come back to that, by one road or another, that's very true.

As someone who lives in the Deep South, I find myself pretty hypeaware of this. Specifically, I don't think that we have, as a nation, quite come to terms with the political fallout of the Civil Rights era. We're still fighting the Civil War after all this time, and we're kinda in denial about it, especially down here.

[HiddenOne]

The South will never be allowed to recover from the Civil War, and so it will continue - I agree with Terez.
Also, our system is screwed, yes, but a better alternative hasn't surfaced, nor will it; nor would it be allowed to survive if it did. Status quo

[worry]

Yah, I think people underestimate how long slavery lasted, they forget how recently it ended (my grandma is 91, and I'm sure she knew people who owned slaves), and they consciously or not downplay the post-slavery horrors at least in terms of how recent they were. All of this stuff just barely happened after centuries of maximum evil, and it's not going away as an issue people live with any time soon. This may seem like an aside, but I say this only because I think besides regular racists (which I think there are still plenty of) and the more subtle not necessarily hateful systemic racism/biases we still deal with, there's also those I think of as the "wishful thinking" crowd, who just want it all to be over with already. They might not have any overt prejudices, and they may mean no harm whatsoever, but they wish with all their might that they can just hit that reset button and erase everything that's come before, and get frustrated that it's even "still" an issue (which is obviously a perspective of privilege, however well-meaning it might be). And of course this makes no practical sense and helps nobody in the real world, it does nothing to erode all the negative consequences of our history, but it does substantiate a potential bloc of voters who can be appealed to, especially if their impatience fuels political resentment against those who believe it's still an issue. And I suspect this particular type of person might be drawn to the Tea Party in particular, since its MO seems to be fighting imaginary issues in places of more challenging real ones. And Ron Paul/libertarians certainly draw from this group as well.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 28 February 2012 - 09:32 PM

[Terez]

Yeah, the disturbing bit is how it plays into the GOP economic talking points. The South didn't have a problem with social programs before the benefits became available to black people. That's why we were so ripe for a neocon revolution after the 60s. The sentiment slowly gained traction in the South during the 70s, and Reagan was the pioneer who began to dismantle the safety net and destroy workers' rights. And Reagan was downright mild in comparison to W. Racist sentiment behind all that, whether it's good ol' American black-white stuff or immigration hardlining or lack of real empathy for poor people in foreign countries. And complete ignorance about the mechanics of it all, because economic theory is just too damn confusing, isn't it? The religious hysteria is probably a backlash from the moral indictment of the Civil Rights era, too, and it fits well with everything else because you've got a bunch of people who mostly care about the hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage, and memorize the talking points on economics without any real understanding of what they're talking about. (They just know they don't want to pay for lazy black people's food stamps, nevermind that most of them probably don't pay net federal income taxes, whether or not they realize it.) And there's little enough opposition to that mentality, what with the New Democrats and all. Or at least there was little opposition, until OWS. And even OWS is struggling in many ways. I'm just glad it's an overarching global sentiment. Yes, we're the worst, but we're far from the only ones in this game.

This post has been edited by Terez: 28 February 2012 - 09:47 PM

[worry]

On the other hand, while Republicans tend to manipulate poor white people, progressive Democrats ignore them almost completely (at least rhetorically, if not policy implementation) and so should get a lot of the blame. That's why Pres. Obama's race speech from a couple years ago is still my favorite of his, it painted the most honest picture I've heard from a politician at that level, and kept the long view (in both chronological directions) in mind. It may have somewhat fell on deaf ears though -- not necessarily just cuz of racism or political apathy, but also a bit of "too little too late" resentment towards progressives in general. Which isn't exactly rational, but understandable on an emotional level I guess.

Which is why even more than hatred or hostility, the racial coding Republicans use for economic competition works so well, and why the fact that Dems rarely overtly counter it is such a shame.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 28 February 2012 - 11:26 PM

[Terez]

So, Romney won Arizona and Michigan. This is getting boring.

[Tsundoku]

worrywort, on 25 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

I think he confused the Netherlands with the actual Nether World.

Or his Nether Regions.

[worry]

Romney did win, but Santorum essentially tied him in MI based on actual delegates, rather than popular vote. This is what Santorum (and to a lesser extent now Gingrich and Paul) are looking for, and what may eventually lead to a brokered convention if nobody actually gets the minimum necessary.

[worry]

On another note, obviously the Daily Show does a lot of its best work during election years. Last night Samantha Bee interviewed Grover Norquist, and it turns out his anti-tax pledge -- which a MAJORITY of the House of Reps has signed, and which states that they will never raise taxes ever under any circumstances -- is an idea he LITERALLY created when he was 12 years old. He has a lot to do with the answer to HD's question in the OP. It's funny, and yet it's kinda not at all funny.

http://www.mediaite....-tax-scenarios/

[RodeoRanch]

American politics is like a train wreck that just never stops.

[Terez]

worrywort, on 29 February 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Romney did win, but Santorum essentially tied him in MI based on actual delegates, rather than popular vote. This is what Santorum (and to a lesser extent now Gingrich and Paul) are looking for, and what may eventually lead to a brokered convention if nobody actually gets the minimum necessary.

Sure, but it gets less and less likely every time Romney wins a state. And we should get some clarity on the issue next week. Can't wait.

This post has been edited by Terez: 01 March 2012 - 02:35 AM

[worry]

Yah, that's true. Just saying I don't find it boring, cuz delusional or not, the losers are still trying to derail Romney.

[HoosierDaddy]

I don't think you'd ever find a base more dispassionate about their candidate than the R's if Romney gets the nod. His VP choice better be Daniels or Christie or someone tangible or else.

[Terez]

Ahh, Andrew Brietbart's last tweet. Dead at 43. Having a hard time summoning up sympathy.

[Shinrei]

RodeoRanch, on 01 March 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

American politics is like a train wreck that just never stops.

The fun part is, that train* has been wrecking ever since 1776! Anyone who thinks there was a "golden age" of American politics has never read a history book.







*historical fun fact: The train was wrecking before there even were trains!