This is an easy answer to the question... Mitt Romney & Tim Pawlenty.
Their slogan- "Keep Your Mitts and Paws Off of My Money!"
But . . . wouldn't their slogan tend to discourage people from voting for them? (maybe it should be, "I want your Mitts and Paws to handle my tax money"?)
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 9, 2011 - 3:08pm
cc_rider wrote:
I disagree, to a point. The media focuses on what people want to see. Which is... wait for it... drama. We want to see bombast, conflict, foibles, extremism.
During the primary process, the candidates have to play to their core supporters, to receive financial support. Which means pandering to their views, even if they're a bit extreme. It is the most extreme who are the most vocal and active in the process. Reasoned discourse does not get people fired up. Look at the previous front-runners: they were nothing more than sideshow acts, but they hogged the spotlight with their outlandish posturing.
The media covers the stories (candidates) that are getting the most public attention. Unfortunately that means only the loudest voices, no matter how batshit crazy they are, get the most attention.
There is a bit of chicken-and-egg going on here, I'll grant you that. But the media is supposed to report the big news of the day, and the big news is always the biggest loudmouth (see: Donald Trump.)
There is a reason why local media cover crime, fires, accidents, etc.
There is a reason that humans gather to watch a fire or slow down to ogle a car accident.
True. The variable primary was supposed to give people time to evaluate the candidates and make decisions. I think that with the age easy travel and constant communication, the long campaign season is now more about money and strategy than anything else. I would love to see a single national primary day, and a much shortened season overall. I don't think the circus that the campaign trail has become is doing anyone any good unless they own a media outlet or a consultant shop.
I think it's good that it spurs a dialogue of what the role of govt ought to be. Too often this is a taboo subject as people get the political hibee-jibee's.. but it's really a philosophical one that's healthy to engage it. Now it's too bad the media outlets have to go and muck that up with their distractions and nonsense..
I heard a bit of NPR on the car radio yesterday... they are declaring the primary a 2-man race between Mitt and Newt. Mitt will win NH, because of his popularity when he was gov of Mass.
This always shocks me though, that a sensible person like Huntsman just can't get in there, and an interesting, new-ideas person like Ron Paul can't get any cred. Geezopete people, the primary is 4 weeks away... that's an eternity in campaign time!! Give them a chance!
The media chooses our president.
Absolutely right, more than we might think. After seeing my bumper sticker or t-shirt, people used to always say to me "I like that Ron Paul guy, but he just can't win." To myself, I know where they got this idea and I simply replied, "Well, I'm not going to the let the media choose my candidate." No one says that me anymore now, since he's a top tier candidate. But even still, they don't mention he is 3rd nationally and 2nd in Iowa...
As for Huntsman... his policies come across very sensible on the surface... and I have seen the various outlets try to pitch him.. but he just never stuck with anyone as far as the polls go. He blended in too well. Of course this is not good for the news cycle...
But yes, the media chooses are president because so many people just accept the notion of what they deliver instead of challenging it or thinking for themselves.
I like the idea but in practice, in Oakland, it allowed an also-ran to win the mayor's office: She/her team ran the usual "vote for me" ads but there was also a concerted campaign to run for second place and IIRC to convince voters supporting the leading candidate to refuse to list a second choice. I suppose once people become more sophisticated, this wouldn't work.
From the article:
From the article: Perata never told supporters whom they should list second and third. As he pulled ahead on the strength of first-place votes on election night, he was asked by a KTVU-TV reporter what he thought would happen next.
"It's a good question," he said. "I don't understand how ranked-choice voting works."
Perata being the candidate who thought he should have won by virtue of the '1st choice' votes, despite only getting ~35% support.
Okay, so yes there is some opportunity to game the system, especially when people are unfamiliar. But at a minimum, the candidates should understand the system in which they are participating. I doubt the supposition that the eventual winner was able to both suppress a second choice selection on the Perata ballots, and manage to get her own name as 2nd on all the others. If her campaign was that good/organized, she should have been able to swing a majority (or at least a better 1st round showing).
I would actually use this as an example to say that the system does work. No candidate was able to muster a clear majority of support. So then the system kicks in and recounts after eliminating the last place candidate the votes are re-tallied. No one looses support, and if the candidate in question was truly an "also ran" she would have been eliminated. She had enough people that had ranked her as a second choice, that when the votes were re-tallied she achieved a majority. The majority of people voting selected her as best or second best of all the available candidates.
This means that the voters had he chosen a good enough candidate. While still not perfect, I think that's a lot better than a system that makes a lot of people vote for the least worst candidate, and can have a winner with support from less than 1/3 of the populace. Had the nation used this system, the outcomes of the 2000 election would have probably been different... 1992 may have been different as well.
I wasn't. I think it's important that all the candidates (the serious ones, not the ones on the book tour) have a chance to present their views so that people can better choose who represents them. There is nothing to preent thrid party primaries either, it's just lack of size/momentum. Overall, I'd like to see us shift our election system. Something like instant runoff elections would be excellent. This would allow you to vote for who you thought was the best candidates, instead of the least bad candidates. It works well in other places (many within the US already).
I like the idea but in practice, in Oakland, it allowed an also-ran to win the mayor's office: She/her team ran the usual "vote for me" ads but there was also a concerted campaign to run for second place and IIRC to convince voters supporting the leading candidate to refuse to list a second choice. I suppose once people become more sophisticated, this wouldn't work.
I wasn't. I think it's important that all the candidates (the serious ones, not the ones on the book tour) have a chance to present their views so that people can better choose who represents them. There is nothing to preent thrid party primaries either, it's just lack of size/momentum. Overall, I'd like to see us shift our election system. Something like instant runoff elections would be excellent. This would allow you to vote for who you thought was the best candidates, instead of the least bad candidates. It works well in other places (many within the US already).
Again you're implying candidates run for office for personal gain? Just to sell books? No way: they aspire to serve their country selflessly... Aw hell, even I can't keep this up: I'm so disgusted with politicians anymore. They all seem like crooks to me.
Oh yeah, the runoff process is time- and money-intensive, I'd like to see it changed as well.
What? Are you implying political candidates change their views based on their audience? That is crazy talk, man.
But yeah, the campaign circus is just that. Shorten it dramatically. Are you advocating eliminating primaries entirely? Just wondering. It seems the primary process effectively prevents third parties from ever gaining a toe-hold. Besides driving us all crazy with endless campaigning...
I wasn't. I think it's important that all the candidates (the serious ones, not the ones on the book tour) have a chance to present their views so that people can better choose who represents them. There is nothing to preent thrid party primaries either, it's just lack of size/momentum. Overall, I'd like to see us shift our election system. Something like instant runoff elections would be excellent. This would allow you to vote for who you thought was the best candidates, instead of the least bad candidates. It works well in other places (many within the US already).
As a followup, I would ask, is the media reporting the story or contributing to making it a story? If all the voting was on one day, it would make it harder to play to the crazy in one district, and then pull back for the more moderate in the majority. In short, more people would get a more even chance at reasonably moderated representation.
What? Are you implying political candidates change their views based on their audience? That is crazy talk, man.
But yeah, the campaign circus is just that. Shorten it dramatically. Are you advocating eliminating primaries entirely? Just wondering. It seems the primary process effectively prevents third parties from ever gaining a toe-hold. Besides driving us all crazy with endless campaigning...
I disagree, to a point. The media focuses on what people want to see. Which is... wait for it... drama. We want to see bombast, conflict, foibles, extremism.
During the primary process, the candidates have to play to their core supporters, to receive financial support. Which means pandering to their views, even if they're a bit extreme. It is the most extreme who are the most vocal and active in the process. Reasoned discourse does not get people fired up. Look at the previous front-runners: they were nothing more than sideshow acts, but they hogged the spotlight with their outlandish posturing.
The media covers the stories (candidates) that are getting the most public attention. Unfortunately that means only the loudest voices, no matter how batshit crazy they are, get the most attention.
There is a bit of chicken-and-egg going on here, I'll grant you that. But the media is supposed to report the big news of the day, and the big news is always the biggest loudmouth (see: Donald Trump.)
See my other post as well.
As a followup, I would ask, is the media reporting the story or contributing to making it a story? If all the voting was on one day, it would make it harder to play to the crazy in one district, and then pull back for the more moderate in the majority. In short, more people would get a more even chance at reasonably moderated representation.
I heard a bit of NPR on the car radio yesterday... they are declaring the primary a 2-man race between Mitt and Newt. Mitt will win NH, because of his popularity when he was gov of Mass.
This always shocks me though, that a sensible person like Huntsman just can't get in there, and an interesting, new-ideas person like Ron Paul can't get any cred. Geezopete people, the primary is 4 weeks away... that's an eternity in campaign time!! Give them a chance!
The media chooses our president.
True. The variable primary was supposed to give people time to evaluate the candidates and make decisions. I think that with the age easy travel and constant communication, the long campaign season is now more about money and strategy than anything else. I would love to see a single national primary day, and a much shortened season overall. I don't think the circus that the campaign trail has become is doing anyone any good unless they own a media outlet or a consultant shop.
I heard a bit of NPR on the car radio yesterday... they are declaring the primary a 2-man race between Mitt and Newt. Mitt will win NH, because of his popularity when he was gov of Mass.
This always shocks me though, that a sensible person like Huntsman just can't get in there, and an interesting, new-ideas person like Ron Paul can't get any cred. Geezopete people, the primary is 4 weeks away... that's an eternity in campaign time!! Give them a chance! The media chooses our president.
I disagree, to a point. The media focuses on what people want to see. Which is... wait for it... drama. We want to see bombast, conflict, foibles, extremism.
During the primary process, the candidates have to play to their core supporters, to receive financial support. Which means pandering to their views, even if they're a bit extreme. It is the most extreme who are the most vocal and active in the process. Reasoned discourse does not get people fired up. Look at the previous front-runners: they were nothing more than sideshow acts, but they hogged the spotlight with their outlandish posturing.
The media covers the stories (candidates) that are getting the most public attention. Unfortunately that means only the loudest voices, no matter how batshit crazy they are, get the most attention.
There is a bit of chicken-and-egg going on here, I'll grant you that. But the media is supposed to report the big news of the day, and the big news is always the biggest loudmouth (see: Donald Trump.)
I heard a bit of NPR on the car radio yesterday... they are declaring the primary a 2-man race between Mitt and Newt. Mitt will win NH, because of his popularity when he was gov of Mass.
This always shocks me though, that a sensible person like Huntsman just can't get in there, and an interesting, new-ideas person like Ron Paul can't get any cred. Geezopete people, the primary is 4 weeks away... that's an eternity in campaign time!! Give them a chance!
How great is that ad? LOL! Targeted marketing at its finest.
Those departments are corrupt and bankrupt. They are a drain on us all. The EPA gives waivers and kowtows to GE while unfairly punishing their smaller competition. The oversight will shift to the state level, it will still exist, just not in a bankrupt, centralized, corporatist fashion like what we have now.
If you're a D, I would suggest voting Paul to keep Romney or a Gingrich out of power! We would see an expansion of war like never before... talk about being a drain on the economy, that would be it! $5 gas with an Iran war? The TSA doing roadside checkpoints? Yes, a Romney or Gingrich will implement that.....Yikes...
Well, he may be the only anti-war candidate, but I do believe we need government oversight on things like education, environment, commerce... Yes, we need to clean up what we've got now, and 100% detach money from politics, but do away with these departments? For one thing, unemployment would go up a couple ticks.
