Sarah Palin running for president?

[daniellaaarisen]

Originally Posted by cristochango

I completely agree with this all
The only thing I'm saying is, during the 2008 elections, I thought she was hot. And didn't know anything about her stances. I would've voted for her, because I was uneducated.

She has electability... for the uneducated/aroused population :P

Unfortnately, a huge chunk of our country would vote based on something like this You raise a good point.

[mezzoforte]

This is probably a little OT, but the question of Palin provokes questions about the primary process and electoral voting. Can I ask what people think about these? How should the process work, in a perfect world?

I tend to hate the primaries because they weed out all of the interesting candidates, and force politicians to adopt deeply problematic positions to cater to certain groups (EX: Corn, the Iowa caucus, and pretty much every candidate, sadly). Moderate candidates have to convince their own parties of their willingness to toe the line, before turning a 180 in the general and trying to win the independents. Few candidates emerge with any integrity visibly intact (Obama probably did as well as anyone has).

John McCain is sort of a tragic example. In 2006 I had a great deal of respect for him, despite disagreeing with many of his positions. He had a history of working closely with Democrats to pass legislation, an extremely moderate voting record, and a commitment to reforming "the ways of Washington" and campaign finance (these ideals would all become major parts of Obama's platform). But labelled a RINO by his own party and saddled with Bush's deplorable legacy, he contorted himself and his positions beyond recognition. The John McCain of previous years would not have chosen Sarah Palin as a running mate.

So, not a fan of the primaries as they are now. But is there really a better system? I'm horribly ignorant in the politics of other countries (would love to be educated), but I have the vague impression that in countries like France there tend to be many more parties far more visible than American third parties, and the winner might only take 30% or so of the vote. This seems even more dangerous to me, because someone like Sarah Palin (repulsive to most, but still adored by millions) could slip right into office.

...That was long and only tangentially related, but would love to hear opinions

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by mezzoforte

This is probably a little OT, but the question of Palin provokes questions about the primary process and electoral voting. Can I ask what people think about these? How should the process work, in a perfect world?

I tend to hate the primaries because they weed out all of the interesting candidates, and force politicians to adopt deeply problematic positions to cater to certain groups (EX: Corn, the Iowa caucus, and pretty much every candidate, sadly). Moderate candidates have to convince their own parties of their willingness to toe the line, before turning a 180 in the general and trying to win the independents. Few candidates emerge with any integrity visibly intact (Obama probably did as well as anyone has).

John McCain is sort of a tragic example. In 2006 I had a great deal of respect for him, despite disagreeing with many of his positions. He had a history of working closely with Democrats to pass legislation, an extremely moderate voting record, and a commitment to reforming "the ways of Washington" and campaign finance (these ideals would all become major parts of Obama's platform). But labelled a RINO by his own party and saddled with Bush's deplorable legacy, he contorted himself and his positions beyond recognition. The John McCain of previous years would not have chosen Sarah Palin as a running mate.

So, not a fan of the primaries as they are now. But is there really a better system? I'm horribly ignorant in the politics of other countries (would love to be educated), but I have the vague impression that in countries like France there tend to be many more parties far more visible than American third parties, and the winner might only take 30% or so of the vote. This seems even more dangerous to me, because someone like Sarah Palin (repulsive to most, but still adored by millions) could slip right into office.

...That was long and only tangentially related, but would love to hear opinions

I agree - Primaries are outdated, and only serve to homogenize the candidate selection.

I don't know if Eurpoean nations, for example, have Primaries. Because they have so many political parties compared to our major two, they have to form alliances based on who gets elected.

So - using familiar terms - if Congress was 20% Democrat, 20% Republican, 20% Libertarian, 20% Green party and 10% each of, oh, let's make these up - the United Party and the Tea Party - no one group would have a majority, so they have to work together to form party alliances so that each group can get it's agenda accomplished with the help of the others. the parties in the minority face getting nothing done, and when alliances fall apart as they sometimes do, the power balance can shift dramatically as new coalitions are formed. If no alliance makes up a majority, this will often result in new elections.

This of course doesn't answer your question about Presidential candidates; but I think the primaries only really work here because there are only two parties, and they only have each other to compete against. So...a Primary helps to avoid running against your own party. If we had several parties, each one would have a smaller share of government and potentially fewer options to choose from, reducing the chances of running against your own party-mates.

I guess if Sarah palin won the presidency here, as a member of the Tea Party, her party would still have to form alliances with the other parties elected to Congress in order for any legislation to get passed, unless they somehow captured the majority of Congressional seats as well - something that is very unlikely in a nation with potentially dozens of parties.

Ultimately, I feel this is a major reason that many European and Asian nations enjoy more social benefits than we do - because they are forced to compromise on each other's agenda. Here...with our current system...it's a bi-polar black or white.

I feel like that all just kinda babbled out, so I hope it made sense.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I agree - Primaries are outdated, and only serve to homogenize the candidate selection.

I don't know if Eurpoean nations, for example, have Primaries. Because they have so many political parties compared to our major two, they have to form alliances based on who gets elected.

So - using familiar terms - if Congress was 20% Democrat, 20% Republican, 20% Libertarian, 20% Green party and 10% each of, oh, let's make these up - the United Party and the Tea Party - no one group would have a majority, so they have to work together to form party alliances so that each group can get it's agenda accomplished with the help of the others. the parties in the minority face getting nothing done, and when alliances fall apart as they sometimes do, the power balance can shift dramatically as new coalitions are formed. If no alliance makes up a majority, this will often result in new elections.

This of course doesn't answer your question about Presidential candidates; but I think the primaries only really work here because there are only two parties, and they only have each other to compete against. So...a Primary helps to avoid running against your own party. If we had several parties, each one would have a smaller share of government and potentially fewer options to choose from, reducing the chances of running against your own party-mates.

I guess if Sarah palin won the presidency here, as a member of the Tea Party, her party would still have to form alliances with the other parties elected to Congress in order for any legislation to get passed, unless they somehow captured the majority of Congressional seats as well - something that is very unlikely in a nation with potentially dozens of parties.

Ultimately, I feel this is a major reason that many European and Asian nations enjoy more social benefits than we do - because they are forced to compromise on each other's agenda. Here...with our current system...it's a bi-polar black or white.

I feel like that all just kinda babbled out, so I hope it made sense.

Well said! It is bipolar! I hate it. I can't stand the Ds nearly as much as I can't stand the Rs at this point. Do your jobs and stop acting like spoiled children!

My stomach literally turns every time I see the title of this thread. Nauseating! If Palin is elected president I'm outtie. I don't think it is possible. I also thought the American public would see right through Bush and they didn't (twice). But Palin is not from a powerful political family and just doesn't have the clout to pull something like this off. Most people think she's off her rocker.

What country will I move to?

[bluefox4000]

I don't vote because it's meaningless. regardless of the party elected, Nobody really cares about the people's best interest. I'm going to quote George Carlin. I quote him a lot.....but this one's really true.

"It's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Mick

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by bluefox4000

I don't vote because it's meaningless. regardless of the party elected, Nobody really cares about the people's best interest. I'm going to quote George Carlin. I quote him a lot.....but this one's really true.

"It's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Mick

His whole bit on that is the truth. He was a straight shooter for sure and I am bummed I never saw him live! I loved that he did that because the whole time I'm like, "YES! Someone's saying it out loud!"

I call trickle down economics suck it up economics. The top 1% sucks up your money then when you try to call them on it they tell you to suck it up as though it's your own fault.

I still vote though I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in any politician these days.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Well said! It is bipolar! I hate it. I can't stand the Ds nearly as much as I can't stand the Rs at this point. Do your jobs and stop acting like spoiled children!

My stomach literally turns every time I see the title of this thread. Nauseating! If Palin is elected president I'm outtie. I don't think it is possible. I also thought the American public would see right through Bush and they didn't (twice). But Palin is not from a powerful political family and just doesn't have the clout to pull something like this off. Most people think she's off her rocker.

What country will I move to?

Palin will become president when hell freezes over. She has a snowballs chance in hell getting elected, much less winning her party's nomination. She is just strategizing & trying to change the winds of who she prefers to win the R primary - She is that egotistical & delusional! Plus she's doing whatever she can to create more visibility for herself and her product (herself) & make as much money as she can before her shelf life expires. I cannot believe that people who initially supported her have not seen right through her & her circus act.

Palin is yet another nauseating and narcissistic example of what happens when some get a sliver of power in our crazy polarized political system & media. It as though she hit the lottery when John McCain, or better yet his team of advisor's picked her, she then quit her job and went out to collect her $$$$$ & sell the public her lies and propaganda. She has become a caricature, in the same vein that I believe Ann Coulter has - Palin found a niche, and she's sticking by it till the $$ runs dry. She is over the TOP on steroids bat-**** CRAZY! Why am I writing about this nitwit!?

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by daniellaaarisen

Unfortnately, a huge chunk of our country would vote based on something like this You raise a good point.

I do remember when Reagan was elected lots of middle-aged women said they voted for him because he was cute. I was only 10 and I thought that was absurd!

I cringed when Scott Brown ran for gov here in MA because he is so gorgeous of course he is going to win! Plus Coakly was just a big snooze of a candidate. He does seem to have some integrity though and does not just follow in lock step with his party when they are wrong. We'll see how his term plays out.

[SuperFleetwood]

I HATE PALIN, She will ruin the country!

[Heartboy]

God, I hope not!

If she ever won, it would be the first time we've had truly a 'White Trash' family running this country & that effin' scares me!

[David]

Originally Posted by bluefox4000

I don't vote because it's meaningless. regardless of the party elected, Nobody really cares about the people's best interest.

Mick, there is somebody who cares about your best interests -- YOU. In fact, some folks believe that you know what's best for you & not a shrink or a politician or a school principal or even an entertainer with a blog for "reaching out" to the fans.

YOU, Mick, have your best interests in mind. The best a government can do -- the best a government should do -- is to allow you to protect your interests while preventing you from infringing on the rights of other citizens to protect theirs. A government doesn't need to be huge to do that. It just needs to write good, just laws & then see that everyone -- government & big business included -- follows those laws.

Keep government small --- but keep it sharp & just.

[louielouie2000]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I do remember when Reagan was elected lots of middle-aged women said they voted for him because he was cute. I was only 10 and I thought that was absurd!

This reminds me of my ex's Mother. She was a card carrying Democrat who used to hold campaign fundraisers at her house, etc. Yet she votes for Charlotte's psychotic Republican Congresswoman Sue Myrick because "Sue had cancer and she's a woman." WTF does that have to do with her policies and ability to govern?! People are so dumb that it just baffles me... totally baffles me.

If you're going to vote for someone who doesn't uphold your ideals and beliefs that's fine... just have solid reasoning for it. I actually voted for a Republican (Pat McCrory) for NC Governor a few years back. I did so because his Democratic rival, Bev Perdue, had no platform of her own, and solely slung mud on McCrory. I could not vote for her because she never once said what she would do if elected. All she did was run attack ads, never once laying out her own agenda. McCrory was Mayor of Charlotte, NC for 14 years (the city I lived in for a decade)... and was actually a damned good mayor & was socially progressive. So for the first time in my life, I voted Republican. But when people vote for a candidate because of their looks, or the fact they were a movie star, or a pro wrestler, it just makes me bang my head against concrete.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

This reminds me of my ex's Mother. She was a card carrying Democrat who used to hold campaign fundraisers at her house, etc. Yet she votes for Charlotte's psychotic Republican Congresswoman Sue Myrick because "Sue had cancer and she's a woman." WTF does that have to do with her policies and ability to govern?! People are so dumb that it just baffles me... totally baffles me.

If you're going to vote for someone who doesn't uphold your ideals and beliefs that's fine... just have solid reasoning for it. I actually voted for a Republican (Pat McCrory) for NC Governor a few years back. I did so because his Democratic rival, Bev Perdue, had no platform of her own, and solely slung mud on McCrory. I could not vote for her because she never once said what she would do if elected. All she did was run attack ads, never once laying out her own agenda. McCrory was Mayor of Charlotte, NC for 14 years (the city I lived in for a decade)... and was actually a damned good mayor & was socially progressive. So for the first time in my life, I voted Republican. But when people vote for a candidate because of their looks, or the fact they were a movie star, or a pro wrestler, it just makes me bang my head against concrete.

Many people vote based on emotions without putting their critical thinking to work. I also find that baffling! My mind just wouldn't let me do that.

I hope people learned SOMETHING after the disaster of Schwarzenegger. Some people are always going to act like idiots, don't hurt yourself over it, please!

A family member would not vote for Obama because of race. Boy did I let that person have it. Scary to see someone who's pro-union and who grew up on Social Security (lost father as a child) vote for McCain.

The Rs do a great job of playing on emotion and evading critical thought. Which is basically brainwashing. Scare the crap out of people then tell them you are the solution. I think people are beginning to see the little man behind the curtain though. (prays)

[Macfanforever]

Nah.if she teams up with a good top running mate.She will just drive him/her down like she did with McCain and ruined his chances.I did like McCain at the time .She probably a smart woman.But she is an airhead when she speaks.I think they should call in judge Judy as a moderator to clean up all the mess down there.between Arnold S and Anthony Weiner problems and all the other shananagans going on in this lovely country we got.Of course Obama cant clean up the mess without geting help from rest of Washington DC .On Weiners case let his constituents deside if he should quit.