|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 21, 2016 8:37:59 GMT -5
Almost all of the post-election talk--with regard to how we got here--is revolving around the election itself (from Russian hackers to Clinton's loss of key states that were thought to be secure) and, now, around the Electoral College (why it didn't serve as a final check against Trump and/or why it's antiquated and needs to go). But I've been pondering long and hard on these things and it occurred to me that maybe this election actually serves as a profound warning with regard to our primary system. That system yielded two bad candidates, imo (different kinds of "bad" to be sure). And in order to do that, the States--the taxpayers--spent nearly half a billion dollars. That doesn't include the millions spent by the candidates themselves and by various orgs during primary season. And the bang we get for all those bucks is self-obsessed, sexist, rude reality TV star and a deeply divisive former First Lady with more baggage than a 747. Now I know that many don't like equating the two, that they feel Clinton was a super-qualified candidate. I don't disagree. But super-qualified doesn't make someone a good candidate. It is an election, after all. It's not an essay test (which I'm sure Clinton would ace). And going into the primaries, then into the election, much of what the Clinton camp and her supporters were doing was pushing back against the idea that she was a poor candidate. The very fact that they needed to do this is, I think, evidence of it being the case. This happened with Romney, too: he had obvious flaws as a candidate, and everyone knew it from the get-go. But I digress. The point here is that I think our primary system is failing us. Badly. First off, we --the tax payers--shouldn't be footing the bill for the means through which political parties select their candidates. If we are going to foot that bill, then there's no way any primaries should get to limit voters (and imo, open primaries are ridiculous). Secondly, the parties themselves need to take a hard look at themselves, because they are failing themselves, insofar as they're not letting their own cream rise to the top. For starters. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 21, 2016 9:04:32 GMT -5
It's actually a good thing to discuss.
1st off, while I'll agree Clinton was qualified to be POTUS, I don't think she was super qualified. I don't get the rhetoric that she was somehow the most qualified we could have hoped for. She did less than a full 2 terms as US Senator, and I don't think she can point to any key, life changing, legislation she helped write or pass. She was SOC, during which time we saw Russia regain major power around the world, a US ambassador and 3 other Americans killed, and an imaginary red line drawn in Syria, among other things. Now while it might not be fair to give her all the blame for those, what did she do that was spectacular?
It was pretty clear the D side was set up as a coronation. They wanted Clinton. And now they blame everything from the Russian hacking, to James Comey, to the electoral college for her losing. Everything except her.
I don't think she was great at the debates either, something else I've seen repeated. She looked great by comparison, but so would a 3 legged, syphilitic dog humping a fire hydrant compared to Trump. Her answer on the Supreme court, the Heller decision, and other things were bad, and I always felt a more capable opponent would have made mince meat out of her.
Having said that, there's a huge (Or should I say bigly) problem with a system that gives us Trump on the R side.
Because of his personality, his outrageous remarks, and his hair, he sucked the oxygen out of the room from everyone else. And there were so many of them. I think if he was 1 on 1 with Rubio or Kasich from the start, he would have lost. Trump would have gotten 30-40 %, the rest to the other one. But because there were so many, his 30% was against 70% divided up 16 ways.
I definitely feel if Rubio or Kasich, or even Bush had gotten the nomination, they would have also won against Clinton. Hell, I think Pataki might have had a chance.
What the fix is, I don't know? Hold all primaries on the same day?
Make them have to revote when it's down to 2 or 3? Or maybe hold a runoff if someone wins a primary with less than 50%?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 10:19:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure how much anything gets fixed while most people continue to pay little attention until the two major parties pick candidates, and couldn't give less of a damn about any election that doesn't select a president. And even then, they just look for the D or R after the name and vote accordingly.
Garbage in, Donald Trump out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 21, 2016 18:01:54 GMT -5
I couldn't vote in the primaries as an independent. I wonder if changing that somehow would help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 18:10:34 GMT -5
I couldn't vote on the primaries as an independent. I wonder if changing that somehow would help. This is why I'm registered as a Democrat rather than as an independent. It's the only way for me to participate in a primary, and it is the way I usually (though not always) end up voting, so (especially here in blue New York) registering as a Democrat is my best shot at a voice in how elections here play out. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 21, 2016 18:22:57 GMT -5
That makes sense, but if there are enough people who don't like choosing "a side" (and lately, who would blame them?) then you've got a swath of voters who don't have any say until it's down to two major candidates. Don't know if it's a significant number of people though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 21, 2016 19:12:53 GMT -5
That makes sense, but if there are enough people who don't like choosing "a side" (and lately, who would blame them?) then you've got a swath of voters who don't have any say until it's down to two major candidates. Don't know if it's a significant number of people though. Last stats I saw, more people considered themselves independent than members of either major party. Here's one. It's a bigger margin than I thought. And the decline is a long-term trend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 20:04:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't feel at all bound by my party registration to vote for a Democrat. I always give consideration to all the candidates running -- luckily, some always save me time by being easy to eliminate -- and vote for whoever seems to me best. Registering for a party didn't take anything away from me, but it gave me the privilege of voting in a primary, and that seemed worth having.
I'm one of the crazy people who starts paying attention as soon as people start talking about running -- long before the primaries. That's true in local elections, too.
derail/ Heh. I went to hear Bill DeBlasio speak right after he started talking about a NYC mayoral run, and had the opportunity to ask him a question or two afterward. I thought he was an ass. He went on and on about the carriage horses in central park, but was completely clueless about the burgeoning homeless crisis and the dumb way NYC has been approaching it. Of the two issues, it's not even close as to which is more important. (Shortly before his speech, the NY Times had run a front-page story about the crisis and the corrupt building owners that were actually managing to make a fortune out of it at the expense of taxpayers and poor people. De Blasio had no excuse whatsoever for not being up on it.) Not only was he clueless, he was smug and glib about brushing off questions about it. He was eliminated in my mind before he even became a candidate. And sure enough, he's handling that (and other things) in an equally clueless manner now that he's mayor. /end derail
|
|
