×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Democrats Crowdsourcing To Vote Palin In Primaries

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the can-you-see-the-primary-from-here? dept.

Democrats 1128

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715090)

I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715174)

The process doesn't matter when the system is already f-ed up.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715202)

As a foreign non-resident, anything that perverts this disgraceful two-party system is good on my book.

As it is, I only go to the U.S. for business reasons. If America degenerates further, I'll choose not to go at all (which bothers me a lot, since there are many things I enjoy there).

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715262)

Yea let's have a 1 party dictatorship instead.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715302)

'Cause that's where the options end...

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715310)

Yea let's have a 1 party dictatorship instead.

Some say it's already one party -- the Corporate party.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715382)

And nobody wants to do anything about it.
If you care, you'd join the Metagovernment project and actually start working on the beginning of a chance at someday escaping this wretched system.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715478)

So what your saying is you'll a)quit your job or b) stop doing business with the US. Have fun with that.

You obviously don't enjoy it enough to care about the future of the country. Sad, since if this country goes down the rest of the globe will start to tear itself apart. As much as people don't want to admit it the US is the only thing keeping back the rest of the would be Hitlers from rising up and claiming smaller lands or lands that would otherwise be poorly defended.

What about England? Oh who and what army? They have/had a navy. But I don't see anyone with as large a force save China and maybe North Korea. Actually I'm fairly certain the Chinese out number the US. Good luck relying on the UK. I'm sure it'll work out better the next time around (WWII?). I know it's throwing salt into the eyes of those countries, but everyone else needs to remember that the US helps keep the world in some sort of chaotic balance. Regardless if you like it or not the US is still needed. If it falls the rest of the developed world will fall to dictators and who knows what else. You can bet that Israel and Iran would nuke each other. Russia would seize its moment to grab what it can.

While the US does depend on allies without the US those allies will be severely weakened to the point of breaking if someone tries anything funky.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715252)

It does. Doesn't your party think it can field a competent candidate? Or does it feel that the voters are too stupid to vote for the "right" person, so they have to be tricked? Yes, I know that sounds like a false dilemma, but what are the other options?

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715340)

I don't know what they are thinking but I'd say both of these options would be correct! The problem is it will probably just help Palin actually get elected... shudder...

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715348)

If I was on Obama's campaign team I would definitely go for this idea. Since I am a victim of American politics like everyone else here this sounds unfair. In the end, there are a hell of a lot of stupid people in this country that would still vote for Palin after everything we learned about her so whatever helps to swing the vote the way of Obama...I'm all for it.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715418)

Let's not start on competency, we are talking about career politicians, that's all I will say about that.

True, it does pollute the already heavily polluted atmosphere in politics, but I really don't think Palin needs any more help. Let's see ... reality show, book, dancing with the daughter, did I miss anything ??? I think they've got all the marketing covered, no need to inject any outside forces. Though, I am sure they wouldn't mind the help. At least those that support her over other candidates.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (5, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715254)

Its already been subverted, explain gerrymandering.

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (2)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715292)

It absolutely perverts the process. It happened in 2008 with the Republicans, because their sails were completely deflated when Romney bowed out due to early votes where Dems could vote in the Repubs primary. Then the Rs tried to turn the table by making the Clinton/Obama race last longer than normal.

As a conservative first and Repub second, I see Palin as an excellent endorser. If she is smart, she will not run. If she was a VP, she would then have the experience to step into office. As it is, she's a drop-out governor and media pundit... no better than Obama - a community organizer.

Process ? what process ? (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715362)

'process' has gone away looong ago. in a perverse system, the only way you can achieve a straight result, unfortunately happens to be through perverse methods.

Hahahahahaha... Perverts the process? (1)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715402)

Look around you, boy! What country do you think you're living in?

Re:As a voter who normally leans Democrat... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715444)

As a voter that leans independent, I'm all for this. It's a product of the two-party system. As long as we have a system that assumes two-parties (from local elections all the way up to rules in Congress), we will have a broken system. If this does happen, it's no worse than the perversions that happen on a daily basis anyway.

Okay, great. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715098)

Does it really matter? It's a one party system.

Re:Okay, great. (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715220)

No it isn't, stop being dismissive just because you don't want to participate.

Re:Okay, great. (5, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#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...

Re:Okay, great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715446)

"A strange game... The only winning move is not to play." - Joshua/WOPR

WCPGW (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715112)

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:WCPGW (0)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715396)

Because the strategy of some Republicans boosting Obama so they wouldn't have to face Clinton in 2010 worked out SO WELL for them - NOT!

Re:WCPGW (3, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715462)

Jesus, no shit. This is going to end in tears.

Why give them the publicity (5, Insightful)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715114)

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.

Re:Why give them the publicity (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715178)

They are all politicians. They all play the same stupid game. The real question is why would anyone want to be president. you get all the blame none of the glory, and if someone 20 layers of management under you screws up you still get blamed.

Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.

Re:Why give them the publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715320)

worthless for who? the president or the party that they belong to?

Re:Why give them the publicity (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715456)

worthless for who? the president or the party that they belong to?

Yes.

Re:Why give them the publicity (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715440)

Being president is worthless. Everyone knows the only winning move is to not to play.

$65M is nothing to sneeze at [cnn.com]

Re:Why give them the publicity (1)

einstein4pres (226130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715242)

There will always be ideologues who value results over process. I would much rather improve the process so it's less inviting to game.

For instance, nonpartisan blanket primaries [wikipedia.org] and instant runoff elections [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Why give them the publicity (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715318)

This is not embarrassing. Rules are there to be circumvented, nothing else. Primaries are no exception. If you think an opponent possibly has a chance to pass the primaries and no chance to win the election, you vote for him/her. True in any country where you can vote for free in the primaries.

Re:Why give them the publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715416)

how many countries do this stupid process?

Re:Why give them the publicity (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715342)

Fighting fair only gets your own ass kicked.

Hope this helps.

--
BMO

Re:Why give them the publicity (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715360)

[citation needed]

Re:Why give them the publicity (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

embarrass ? (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715392)

what should embarrass you is that, a party is having to sink into that level, because the other was not only filthy enough to sink to that level, but was also allowed to. leaving the other with no choice but to do the same, or get into disadvantage.

really. i think there is no straight working thing left in american system at this point. all became either rotten to the core of betraying the founding principles or broken to the point of betraying them.

Re:Why give them the publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715394)

Insightful?
Are you only 2 years old? That would be an excuse for your response.
Please please please do more than watch MTV for news.
There is such a long history of this that you response truly saddens me, but getting that comment modded insightful is frighting.
--
Posted Anonymously because of the vitriolic replies when I don't follow the liberal line.

Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primaries? (2, Insightful)

gameboyhippo (827141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715118)

And this is why we can't have nice things. Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.

Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (5, Funny)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715140)

Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.

Um, I have bad news for you...

Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (3, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#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] .

Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715296)

The spirit of the primaries is that a small group of partisan loyalists will pick a candidate that they all promise to support at the national election. So rather than having a real choice, you get a coin toss.

Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (1)

gewalker (57809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715330)

It not only violates the spirit, it also violate the law (at least in some states). Chance of actual serving criminal penalties is minimal though.

Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715366)

They already do that to some extent. The party elites choose who they'll even allow to run under their party's banner, then we're allowed the illusion of choice during the primaries.

Re:Doesn't this violate the spirit of the Primarie (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715376)

Other countries have a process where candidates are chosen by party members only (which you have to pay to do), and it seems to work fine. There's no need for an open free for all like this unless you want to invite people to screw with it.

uhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715124)

That could *SO* backfire horribly.

I have no ties to either political party (can't stand either of them), but the phrase "President Palin" makes my skin crawl.

Re:uhh... (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715260)

I'm conservative and that makes MY skin crawl. Admittedly, I dislike both parties but dislike the Repubs less.

Re:uhh... (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715280)

Maybe a really bad "backfire" is what the system needs. Four years of President Palin could put the GOP out of commission like Millard Fillmore did for the Whigs.

Re:uhh... (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715356)

You Betcha!

Re:uhh... (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715436)

We already had one really bad backfire in 2008 and there is no evidence it is going to put the Democrats out of commission, although it hurt them pretty bad in 2010.

That's exactly the problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715130)

Politicians care more about getting themselves elected than they do about the welfare of our country.

This is so true! (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715218)

Politicians are really the scum of the earth. This is one of the biggest flaws with our political system. Electioneering has gone horribly wrong here.

Re:This is so true! (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715338)

Politicians are really the scum of the earth. This is one of the biggest flaws with our political system. Electioneering has gone horribly wrong here.

Democracy selects for candidates who lie convincingly to get everyone to believe that they're going to get what they want if they vote for them.

We have a word for people like that: psychopaths.

Re:That's exactly the problem (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715458)

+1000. Bingo. They are politicians, not statesman. The system is rotten to the core.

Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (4, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715146)

This is dangerous. Jimmy Carter wanted to run against Ronald Reagan - 1 to 2 years out he was seen as the easiest to beat. Alas, didn't turn out that way.

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715182)

This is dangerous. Jimmy Carter wanted to run against Ronald Reagan - 1 to 2 years out he was seen as the easiest to beat. Alas, didn't turn out that way.

Yes but Carter committed political suicide before the elections by telling the American people that they might have to sacrifice a little.

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715230)

Yup. Obama and the Republicans are telling us the exact opposite. They learned a lot. Spend a trillion more than you bring in to "bolster the economy" and no one blinks an eye.

He lost because he was the worst president ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715294)

Jimmy Carter lost because he was a bad president and when the people reacted predictably to his incompetence, he went on TV to tell us we had a malaise.

Fortunately, he had a brother who was a lot smarter than him.

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715308)

We'll find out in Jan when the GOP isn't in the minority in both houses and the White House.

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715408)

/eyeroll

Yeah, because their recent period of controlling both houses and the White House told us nothing.

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715452)

They didn't have a bunch of "crazy TEA partiers" on their cases.

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715346)

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.

Democrats have had control of the Presidency, Senate, and House for 2 years now and things have not gotten better at all, some would say worse.

So tell us again who has to put up or shut up?

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715460)

Carter's problem was Iran. His other problem was stagflation. That's what you get when you elect a liberal, pussies and

Re:Carter lead Reagan 2 years out too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715326)

I may not like or agree with the vast majority of what Reagan said, but I've watched his speeches and can respect that there was intelligence there. He did fairly well against Carter in debates and had real things to attack in his campaign. In contrast Palin makes Bush Jr. look smart, and doesn't even have the clarity of thought to attack substantive failings in the Obama administration. Moreover she doesn't even take direction well, so I don't even have faith that Rove could mold her into anything resembling a formidable candidate.

Nice (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715150)

And what happens if Palin gets elected? Can we shoot every one of these crowdsourcing participants for treason?

Get what they deserve (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715258)

I am sure it's a foolproof plan. Palin could never get elected if this plan comes to fruition.

just in case it isn't obvious (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715276)

I was being sarcastic!

Re:Get what they deserve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715316)

Palin running with Christine O'Donnell as Vice.

"We're no crazy b^hwitches, we're you!"

Re:Get what they deserve (2)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715380)

I wouldn't be so sure. If this works, there are going to be a whole lot of Republicans at the ballot box having to decide between someone they came very goddamned close to voting in as a Vice President of a Presidential candidate they weren't really thrilled with in the first place (but they voted for McCain because he was NOT a Democrat), and a Democrat.

If Palin wins the Republican primary, I think you'll see a decent amount of interest in a third party, but it might be a moderate third party candidate that some Democrats could get behind as well.

You'll also see a good number of people who use the word "socialist" in conversation frequently who would gladly vote for Anyone But A Democrat. They'd probably line up to vote for Satan himself, as long as there was an (R) at the end of the name on the voting card. I'm sure there are a number of electoral votes that any Republican could count on no matter how radical they were, and it's a fairly significant number.

(to be fair, the same basic thing is also true of many Democrats).

Re:Nice (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715378)

No, that has been refudiated.

Shoot who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715424)

There won't be anyone left to shoot. Palin in the White House would result in World War III and the death of humanity.

Ahh, Mayans - so this is how the world ends.

Unethical! (2)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715166)

If this is true, it's a sad day for the Democratic Party. Anyone (from any party) who supports this type of behavior is just morally bankrupt.

Re:Unethical! (1)

MichaelKristopeit349 (1968132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715476)

"just" morally bankrupt?

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

republicans voted obama in the primaries.

What these Democrats don't realize... (5, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715186)

... is that elections are largely driven by economic fundamentals and (to some degree) random chance. Meaning, there's a non-trivial probability that Palin might beat Obama. I'm not trying to be an ass about Palin, because I'm sure she's a nice person in the right context, but she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate. She doesn't appear to have taken the lessons offered by the '08 election in terms of becoming more informed or dedicated --- all she seems to have learned is that she can get traction by attacking anything remotely related to the left wing. That's great for a pundit, not so great for the President of a large country.

In the long run a Palin presidency would be a disaster for Democrats and Republicans, not to mention Americans in general. These people shouldn't flirt with disaster.

Re:What these Democrats don't realize... (2)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715374)

What drugs are involved in that context?

Re:What these Democrats don't realize... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715390)

because I'm sure she's a nice person in the right context

[citation needed]

Re:What these Democrats don't realize... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715466)

"she has not demonstrated anything close to the knowledge and/or responsibility that I would expect in a Presidential candidate"

Neither has Obama

What If? (1)

ears_d (1400833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715190)

She were to win the primary and then pull ahead in the polls?

Been there, done that (5, Insightful)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715192)

in 1933 the German Conservatives decided to support Hitler as chancellor to destroy the Nazi movement by confronting its ludicrous proposals with the cold reality of real life government.

The Nazis decided that if their plans weren't realistic, reality would have to budge.

Not saying (not even implying, hi there FoxNews) that Palin's a Nazi, will create a totalitarian state of some kind or other. I am saying that candidate Palin could become president Palin and Democrats would have noone but themselves to blame.

Re:Been there, done that (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715312)

That is exactly what worries me. Personally, I would like to see someone replace Obama, but she is just a different brand of bad. Guess I will be voting a Libertarian straight ticket again.

Careful What You Wish For... (1)

TheRedDuke (1734262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715194)

I can see two potentially disasterous consequences here:

1) The Centrists vote right in the national election and Palin fucks us worse than W or Obama ever did, or
2) The Right starts their own campaign to nominate unelectable Dems - then we'd truly be choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich.

I sympathize with the cause, but question the method.

Please don't (1)

wannabe-retiree (845754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715204)

This is a bad idea. Karl Rove's strategy has proved that you can win elections by motivating your base rather than having broad appeal. If Palin gets the nomination and right around the election we wind up with a double dip recession and Afghanistan gets even worse, it isn't unrealistic that she could win.

This is why we can't have nice things (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715216)

One of the changes this country seriously needs is a move to more open primaries. As it stands now, party politics are mostly driven by the extreme base, and sensible people who want the best of both worlds (or, heaven forbid, three or four worlds!) are left behind. Open primaries allow everyone to pick the candidates they would indeed most like to see win.

But idiots who want to game the system by registering as Democrat/Republican to vote for the opposing side's least-winnable candidate are why we can't have a more open primary system, and only fuel the brutally and falsely partisan political discourse. This sort of tactic is, in a word, disgusting, and in two words, outright shameful.

Best case scenario - The guy you wanted to win does, despite your wasted efforts/money before the primary
Worst case scenario - Your campaign works and she wins. NOW WHAT?!

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715246)

See subject.

Everyone knows (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715264)

That the best way to insure the success of your dirty tricks campaign is to broadcast it loudly and publicly so everyone knows, especially the party you are pulling your shenanigans against. If anything if this campaign does gain traction, the likely outcome is that public votes for Palin will be tossed and Republicans will resort to an election by delegates only, which will completely eradicate these efforts and deny the common citizens their illusion of democracy.

Vote third party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715268)

Please, do some research and vote third party (if you find it appropriate with your views). Don't just play games.

Liberal Group? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715274)

This group is proud to call itself liberal, but their entire purpose is to subvert the democratic process. Additionally, negative comments about the organization's purposes are removed from their comment system (more rightly, never make it through moderation). So if this group is against democracy and free speech then I am left to wonder how they define 'liberal'.

goobers (1)

d0tslsh (1968146) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715278)

really, goobs? i thought this was real life, not reality television. whatever, dems hardly vote in real elections much less primaries, mitt will win and this country will finally be back on track again. not that much will be left for him to work with....the budget is worse than ever and the change dudes will have scrapped all the spare change by then

Dangerous and Stupid...or it's brilliant (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715282)

From a democrat perspective, she's unlikely to win, but there's no guarantee that's the case. Not to mention that when both sides start trying to get the worst of the other party to get elected, we guarantee ourselves a choice between the worst possible candidates.

That said, if Palin's team came up with this, it's a brilliant campaign strategy for her. Hopefully people aren't stupid enough to vote for her, whatever the motivations of the organizers.

Very childish (1)

jtseng (4054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715284)

I personally hope someone runs and beats Obama in the primaries, but, assuming Obama wins that or is unchallenged, who the hell would vote for that hick dim bulb of a crackpot over him? The problem isn't he did a bad job, the problems are a) he turned out to be milquetoast when it came to arguing for his points b) he is (a terrible negotiator | complicit with the corporations | an idiot) and his supporters saw right through him. He can take the high ground. He can easily win on his principles alone (assuming he has and believes in them) and doesn't have to resort to this kind of immature Limbaugh-style attempt at vote manipulation.

Re:Very childish (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715472)

The problem isn't he did a bad job, the problems are a) he turned out to be milquetoast when it came to arguing for his points b) he is (a terrible negotiator | complicit with the corporations | an idiot) and his supporters saw right through him.

The problem is that he claimed to be the Second Coming Of Kennedy (or something) and turned out to be the Second Coming Of Jimmy Carter.

Getting Palin to run as the Republican candidate or magicking up a rapidly growing economy where everyone has a decent job are about the only hopes I can see for remaining in the White House. Any half-competent Republican should be able to beat him at this point.

/facepalm (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715322)

Just because the likes of Limbaugh and the dittoheads thought this was a good idea doesn't mean that it is,

In fact, it should tell them that it's exactly the opposite.

Please, please, no (4, Insightful)

mean pun (717227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715344)

Seems like a terribly bad idea to me. (1) It corrupts the US election process, because that's not how it was supposed to work. (2) It legitimizes non-democratic measures to counter this. (3) It increases the odds that Sara Palin becomes President. On the plus side, it does show a rather touching confidence in the common sense of the US voter (that, sadly, I cannot share).

As a european my most direct concern is (3), because having an airhead as the leader of a large and powerful nation is bad for the whole world, but (1) and (2) are painful to watch too. To use a car analogy: of course my neighbor is free to use a sledgehammer on his own car, but it's still painful to watch.

There is one very simple reason not to do this: (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715370)

President Palin.

Re:There is one very simple reason not to do this: (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715426)

Not to mention that at that moment, satire will be dead, and the joke's on the whole world.

If this isn't proof that the system is broken... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715400)

... then I don't know what is. This is as close to election rigging as you can get without actually stuffing the ballot box.

Fortunately, the delegates to the convention are not (always) required to vote for the candidate who garners the most votes in their primaries. They don't have to take the candidates that the other party foists upon them. They can use their own judgment, and hopefully they will.

Vote Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715410)

Vote Ron Paul - join the revolution!

Waste of time. (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715430)

This never works.

Besides, it looks like the goal is to keep an unpopular president in office. How is this good for the nation?

I think it would be better to lobby for the choice "None of the above". Given an Obama vs Palin slate, that is how I would like to vote.

So what if she wins it (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715442)

You people actually think it will make a damn bit of difference? Don't delude yourselves, and don't confuse the office of the presidency with the person who occupies it. One has nothing to do with the other.

Further reduces influence of independent Americans (4, Insightful)

dirkdodgers (1642627) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715448)

This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries. This means independents, most Americans, will have even less say in who our leaders are.

The 20% of the population who are hardcore partisan douchebags like these make me sick. What we need is a process that let's the other 80% of the population - most of who are so disgusted by this that they don't even vote - have more say, not less.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?