If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Nine things to take away from this election. Like why the hell do we have to sit through this shiat for any longer than six months prior to election day?   (politico.com) divider line 47
    More: Interesting, field agents, obama, critical state, voting bloc, tea party  
•       •       •

962 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2012 at 12:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-06 08:12:25 AM
If it takes a year and a half for undecided voters to make up their minds, just think about how confused and conflicted they'd be by having only six months.
 
2012-11-06 08:17:05 AM

Cythraul: If it takes a year and a half for undecided voters to make up their minds, just think about how confused and conflicted they'd be by having only six months.


But 6 months would drive more people to the polls because we'd have less time to have political attrition by just tuning out all the election crap. I mean some swing states that have early primaries have been suffering over saturation for close to 2 years now (or 6, if you consider how long Romney has been campaigning)

Also, I wonder if we can get a law passed that says attack ads fall under "slandering" and therefore false advertising. Especially with such a vicious election year where both sides kinda blurred the lines of truth telling in ads.
 
2012-11-06 08:19:09 AM
Anyone else remember that Bloom County strip where Opus tries to campaign for the Meadow Party too soon and ends up getting tarred and feathered?

Yeah, THAT.
 
2012-11-06 08:19:22 AM
I wonder which network anchor will be the first tonight to start the "What does this mean for 2016? Hilary? Chris Christie? Megatron/Cobra Commander?" asspipery. Because you know they will, and you know the 2016 campaign has already begun.
 
2012-11-06 08:20:46 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I wonder which network anchor will be the first tonight to start the "What does this mean for 2016? Hilary? Chris Christie? Megatron/Cobra Commander?" asspipery. Because you know they will, and you know the 2016 campaign has already begun.


Wolf Blitzer, after calling the election for Romney after only one state calls it for him.
 
2012-11-06 08:25:48 AM
According to the Aussies I've spoken with, they're dumbfounded our campaign takes so long. The law in Australia calls for a 6 week limit on campaigning...
 
2012-11-06 08:31:05 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: asspipery


Stolen for awesomeness.
 
2012-11-06 08:32:37 AM

Paris1127: According to the Aussies I've spoken with, they're dumbfounded our campaign takes so long. The law in Australia calls for a 6 week limit on campaigning...


Six weeks isn't nearly enough time for super-pacs to brainwash the public.
 
2012-11-06 08:34:28 AM

Cythraul: Paris1127: According to the Aussies I've spoken with, they're dumbfounded our campaign takes so long. The law in Australia calls for a 6 week limit on campaigning...

Six weeks isn't nearly enough time for super-pacs to brainwash the public.


easy solution, get rid of super pacs. If they want to support a campaign, then they donate like normal people

/yes, I just said that superpacs are run by normal people
//gotta go clean myself
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-06 08:40:39 AM

Paris1127: According to the Aussies I've spoken with, they're dumbfounded our campaign takes so long. The law in Australia calls for a 6 week limit on campaigning...


They don't have an activist supreme court or a legislature owned by lobbyists.
 
2012-11-06 08:50:18 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I wonder which network anchor will be the first tonight to start the "What does this mean for 2016? Hilary? Chris Christie? Megatron/Cobra Commander?" asspipery. Because you know they will, and you know the 2016 campaign has already begun.


The speculation about Andrew Cuomo in 2016 started two years ago. Do try to keep up.

Know what would shorten the campaigns, at least a little? A referendum held one year before each presidential election, on whether the current president, House/Senate majority and minority leaders, and key committee chairs and ranking minority members should be allowed to run for re-election. You get a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on the lot of them.
 
2012-11-06 09:13:50 AM

Cythraul: Paris1127: According to the Aussies I've spoken with, they're dumbfounded our campaign takes so long. The law in Australia calls for a 6 week limit on campaigning...

Six weeks isn't nearly enough time for super-pacs to brainwash the public.


I think the limit is due to the fact that elections aren't on a set schedule in Australia. Elections can be called by the Governor-General (an appointee of Queen Elizabeth, true head of state) on request by the Prime Minister or else after a certain period of time. Once the Governor-General dissolves Parliament, that's when the campaign starts, and it ends on election day. Also, fun fact, it's mandatory to vote in Australia.
 
2012-11-06 09:18:20 AM

Gulper Eel: Mr. Coffee Nerves: I wonder which network anchor will be the first tonight to start the "What does this mean for 2016? Hilary? Chris Christie? Megatron/Cobra Commander?" asspipery. Because you know they will, and you know the 2016 campaign has already begun.

The speculation about Andrew Cuomo in 2016 started two years ago. Do try to keep up.

Know what would shorten the campaigns, at least a little? A referendum held one year before each presidential election, on whether the current president, House/Senate majority and minority leaders, and key committee chairs and ranking minority members should be allowed to run for re-election. You get a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on the lot of them.


Lizard People.
 
2012-11-06 10:06:49 AM
After today we can continue with the War On Christmas. Faux Nuze will tell us what to do.
 
2012-11-06 10:24:33 AM
The minimum length (no jokes, please) by law of a federal election campaign in Canada is 36 days.

There is no maximum length legislated. The longest on record was in 1926, which ran 74 days. The average is around 50 days.

And that seems goddamn long enough.

Sometimes less freedom is a good thing, where politicians are concerned.
 
2012-11-06 10:28:16 AM
The Presidency of the United States of America now costs (pinky to mouth) ONE BILLION DOLLARS!
 
2012-11-06 10:49:53 AM
A bloo blah bloo hearing about politics makes me so sad :(
 
2012-11-06 11:22:21 AM
Put a 2 month limit on political campaigning for presidency. 1 term limit on senate and congress, and a $100m taxpayer funded kitty for campaign finance to be used by those running. Any one using outside sources of money gets thrown in jail for a decade.

Shorter elections, less bullshiat, less people running for careers and to make money. Everybody's happy!
 
2012-11-06 11:27:02 AM

Paris1127: According to the Aussies I've spoken with, they're dumbfounded our campaign takes so long. The law in Australia calls for a 6 week limit on campaigning...


Sounds like farking heaven. Here, the 2016 campaign will begin at 12:01 am tomorrow morning. *sigh*
 
2012-11-06 12:02:21 PM

Gulper Eel: Know what would shorten the campaigns, at least a little? A referendum held one year before each presidential election, on whether the current president, House/Senate majority and minority leaders, and key committee chairs and ranking minority members should be allowed to run for re-election. You get a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on the lot of them.


That would do next to nothing. Romney wasn't an incumbent and still would have been campaigning since 2007. All the referendum would do is have people start running adds about why they should get the thumbs up. or why the incumbet should get the thumbs down.
 
2012-11-06 12:04:19 PM
Subby, don't be such a victim.
You don't have to pay attention to the campaigning. Most people don't.

If you can, take charge of your own life, you will feel a lot better for it.
 
2012-11-06 12:04:36 PM
Lawyers will decide this election....that is the only take away. They set the precedent with Citizens United and they will follow through with rampant allegations of voter suppression, election fraud, recounts, and general malarkey.
 
2012-11-06 12:11:19 PM
Rmoney's ready to challenge the electoral college. This will drag out another six months. With radio ads and tv ads. Everyday. Think of the last six months as a training period.
 
2012-11-06 12:19:00 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Subby, don't be such a victim.
You don't have to pay attention to the campaigning. Most people don't.

If you can, take charge of your own life, you will feel a lot better for it.


Burma-Shave!
 
2012-11-06 12:22:31 PM

BitwiseShift: Rmoney's ready to challenge the electoral college. This will drag out another six months. With radio ads and tv ads. Everyday. Think of the last six months as a training period.


Won't happen.
There is no challenge to be had, the rules are clear.
Besides, Romney has too much respect for this country and the constitution.
 
2012-11-06 12:29:18 PM
Things a mandated short election season would do in the US:

1) Generally favor the incumbent and make things harder for new-comers without prior name recognition.
2) INCREASE the influence of outside groups - particularly issue based groups who would be protected by the 1st Amendment from restrictions on their speech.
3) Allow for MORE tightly scripted campaigns.
4) Be MORE biased against third parties and grass root efforts because costly national/state-wide advertising would be necessary immediately - grass roots don't have time to grow.

A small window for campaigning in a nation as large as this and with a two party, non-parliamentary system from top to bottom is a bad idea.
 
2012-11-06 12:29:26 PM

Citrate1007: Lawyers will decide this election....that is the only take away. They set the precedent with Citizens United and they will follow through with rampant allegations of voter suppression, election fraud, recounts, and general malarkey.


Oh you're REALLY making my day here now. Especially since you might be right. Hey, let's do something that makes us look like idiots to the entire world again! OK, let's do it!!
 
2012-11-06 12:30:13 PM
Why the hell not have a campaign last 2 months like the rest of the world???

Seriously, 2 years of campaigning is farking ridiculous.
 
2012-11-06 12:33:01 PM
Pfffft. If 30 days is good enough for us Canadians, it should be good enough for you.
 
2012-11-06 12:34:06 PM

Deneb81: Things a mandated short election season would do in the US:

1) Generally favor the incumbent and make things harder for new-comers without prior name recognition.
2) INCREASE the influence of outside groups - particularly issue based groups who would be protected by the 1st Amendment from restrictions on their speech.
3) Allow for MORE tightly scripted campaigns.
4) Be MORE biased against third parties and grass root efforts because costly national/state-wide advertising would be necessary immediately - grass roots don't have time to grow.

A small window for campaigning in a nation as large as this and with a two party, non-parliamentary system from top to bottom is a bad idea.


Bullshiat. It in no way favors the incumbent. It won't increase influence of outside groups. The more time they have the more influence over that time. Tightly scripted campaigns are a good thing. It makes candidates talk about real issues and stupid bullshiat like flag pins or eating dog.

I agree it would be more biased against third parties but so what. They never have a chance to begin with. We need more Rosanne Barrs?
 
2012-11-06 12:35:52 PM
As for the US being a "large" nation it's not like you don't have access to information right at your finger tips.
 
2012-11-06 12:50:08 PM

wotthefark: Deneb81: Things a mandated short election season would do in the US:

1) Generally favor the incumbent and make things harder for new-comers without prior name recognition.
2) INCREASE the influence of outside groups - particularly issue based groups who would be protected by the 1st Amendment from restrictions on their speech.
3) Allow for MORE tightly scripted campaigns.
4) Be MORE biased against third parties and grass root efforts because costly national/state-wide advertising would be necessary immediately - grass roots don't have time to grow.

A small window for campaigning in a nation as large as this and with a two party, non-parliamentary system from top to bottom is a bad idea.

Bullshiat. It in no way favors the incumbent. It won't increase influence of outside groups. The more time they have the more influence over that time. Tightly scripted campaigns are a good thing. It makes candidates talk about real issues and stupid bullshiat like flag pins or eating dog.

I agree it would be more biased against third parties but so what. They never have a chance to begin with. We need more Rosanne Barrs?


Throw in limited campaign financing and I think it could help 3rd parties. Less time to spend vast wads of cash balances the playing field. Though 3rd parties need to start from the ground up, otherwise they're just wasting money and time.
 
2012-11-06 01:06:23 PM
Shorter election cycles can't be legislated. Parties - and the candidates themselves - are private individuals. Saying "you can only talk about politics for a set amount of time" pretty much is diametrically opposed to both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment idea of free speech, which we interpret very broadly, but was meant precisely to deal with political speech. In Britain and many former British colonies, free speech is more of a strongly worded suggestion, so the government can step in and say "you may only talk about politics for this long or we will throw you in the pokey". But in the US, you are going to have to amend the Constitution, and either write the most precisely-worded text imaginable or end up with the possibility of having governmental control of political speech (and if you think you can go short and terse, think about all the exceptions to the Fourth that get hung on "unreasonable" and "probable")
 
2012-11-06 01:15:28 PM

alwaysjaded: Here, the 2016 campaign will begin at 12:01 am tomorrow morning. *sigh*


Heck.....it already started a few weeks ago when various pre-pre-pre-candidates went to Iowa to get their pictures taken eating a phallic corn dog.

Has 2016 race already started?  - (mysanantonio.com)
by Rick Casey
November 2, 2012
 
2012-11-06 01:15:50 PM

phalamir: Shorter election cycles can't be legislated. Parties - and the candidates themselves - are private individuals. Saying "you can only talk about politics for a set amount of time" pretty much is diametrically opposed to both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment idea of free speech, which we interpret very broadly, but was meant precisely to deal with political speech.


This. Freedom of speech, son.
 
2012-11-06 01:21:45 PM

homelessdude: alwaysjaded: Here, the 2016 campaign will begin at 12:01 am tomorrow morning. *sigh*

Heck.....it already started a few weeks ago when various pre-pre-pre-candidates went to Iowa to get their pictures taken eating a phallic corn dog.

Has 2016 race already started?  - (mysanantonio.com)
by Rick Casey
November 2, 2012


The Murdoch/Christie thing was clearly in preparation for 2016.

Additionally, term-long campaigns aren't unprecedented. The day after the House chose John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson to settle the 1824 campaign, Jackson was renominated for President and began campaigning for the 1828 election.
 
2012-11-06 01:23:31 PM

wotthefark: Deneb81: Things a mandated short election season would do in the US:

1) Generally favor the incumbent and make things harder for new-comers without prior name recognition.
2) INCREASE the influence of outside groups - particularly issue based groups who would be protected by the 1st Amendment from restrictions on their speech.
3) Allow for MORE tightly scripted campaigns.
4) Be MORE biased against third parties and grass root efforts because costly national/state-wide advertising would be necessary immediately - grass roots don't have time to grow.

A small window for campaigning in a nation as large as this and with a two party, non-parliamentary system from top to bottom is a bad idea.

Bullshiat. It in no way favors the incumbent. It won't increase influence of outside groups. The more time they have the more influence over that time. Tightly scripted campaigns are a good thing. It makes candidates talk about real issues and stupid bullshiat like flag pins or eating dog.

I agree it would be more biased against third parties but so what. They never have a chance to begin with. We need more Rosanne Barrs?


Not favor the incumbent? Do you think Obama beats Hillary in a 60 day primary? Kerry, a relatively unknown senator outside the east coast has a shot against Bush with a campaign starting in September?

And there is no way short of gutting first amendment protections of political speech that you can prevent issue groups from running advertisements outside that 60 day window. They don't have to support a candidate by name, but they can set the theme and tone for the issue before candidates can even respond. Or, you prevent people from releasing ads, books, movies or TV shows that deal with political issues except during the election. You're fooling yourself if you think a smalle window wouldn't just lead to MORE 'Obama 2016' crap.
 
2012-11-06 01:23:36 PM
We should have a 6 month campaign for a single Presidential term of 6 years. That way, no sitting President ever has to leave his post to fundraise or campaign while in office, and we just let them try to get as much done as they can in 6 years. They rarely get anything done in election year anyways, so why both forcing them to divert attention away from running the country.
 
2012-11-06 01:26:35 PM

Slaxl: wotthefark: Deneb81: Things a mandated short election season would do in the US:

1) Generally favor the incumbent and make things harder for new-comers without prior name recognition.
2) INCREASE the influence of outside groups - particularly issue based groups who would be protected by the 1st Amendment from restrictions on their speech.
3) Allow for MORE tightly scripted campaigns.
4) Be MORE biased against third parties and grass root efforts because costly national/state-wide advertising would be necessary immediately - grass roots don't have time to grow.

A small window for campaigning in a nation as large as this and with a two party, non-parliamentary system from top to bottom is a bad idea.

Bullshiat. It in no way favors the incumbent. It won't increase influence of outside groups. The more time they have the more influence over that time. Tightly scripted campaigns are a good thing. It makes candidates talk about real issues and stupid bullshiat like flag pins or eating dog.

I agree it would be more biased against third parties but so what. They never have a chance to begin with. We need more Rosanne Barrs?

Throw in limited campaign financing and I think it could help 3rd parties. Less time to spend vast wads of cash balances the playing field. Though 3rd parties need to start from the ground up, otherwise they're just wasting money and time.


That outside money doesn't just go away though. It's there - and it would be there in a shorter season. Except, you can't place the same time restrictions on non-candidates unless you want to wildly reduce 1st amendment protection of political speech. If anything, capping time and money would give outside parties not bound by the rules MORE of an advantage.
 
2012-11-06 01:27:59 PM

qorkfiend: Additionally, term-long campaigns aren't unprecedented. The day after the House chose John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson to settle the 1824 campaign, Jackson was renominated for President and began campaigning for the 1828 election.



Rumor has it hat Jackson was also financing the development of a vote counting machine based on water power, but would not say which stream or river the machines would be located by. Very suspicious.

But that is just is just a rumor.
 
2012-11-06 01:31:41 PM
Six days would just about try my patience to the breaking point.
 
2012-11-06 01:37:40 PM
The problem to me is in defining *campaigning.* Short of actually running ads, who's to say that all those public appearances to build name recognition and delineate policy positions are *campaigning* and NOT *concerned public activism surrounding our most important issues*? The ads don't really kick in that much until late summer/fall anyway, so on that only obvious criteria alone, we're at less than 6 months.

Much as I'd love to see it happen, with a single national primary day being the starting pistol. Too many states don't matter in the primaries, and don't matter today.
 
2012-11-06 02:49:37 PM
Obama remains in dangerous territory for an incumbent heading into Election Day, under 50 percent in a number of states.

Oh no! Not "a number of states"! He's dooooooomed!
 
2012-11-06 02:53:22 PM

vpb: Paris1127: According to the Aussies I've spoken with, they're dumbfounded our campaign takes so long. The law in Australia calls for a 6 week limit on campaigning...

They don't have an activist supreme court or a legislature owned by lobbyists.


That's touchingly naive.
 
2012-11-06 04:53:34 PM
I don't think our campaign cycle in Canada lasts more than 6 weeks, if that.
 
2012-11-06 10:37:41 PM

homelessdude: alwaysjaded: Here, the 2016 campaign will begin at 12:01 am tomorrow morning. *sigh*

Heck.....it already started a few weeks ago when various pre-pre-pre-candidates went to Iowa to get their pictures taken eating a phallic corn dog.

Has 2016 race already started?  - (mysanantonio.com)
by Rick Casey
November 2, 2012


SON OF A BIA......
 
2012-11-06 10:59:03 PM

phalamir: Shorter election cycles can't be legislated. Parties - and the candidates themselves - are private individuals. Saying "you can only talk about politics for a set amount of time" pretty much is diametrically opposed to both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment idea of free speech, which we interpret very broadly, but was meant precisely to deal with political speech. In Britain and many former British colonies, free speech is more of a strongly worded suggestion, so the government can step in and say "you may only talk about politics for this long or we will throw you in the pokey". But in the US, you are going to have to amend the Constitution, and either write the most precisely-worded text imaginable or end up with the possibility of having governmental control of political speech (and if you think you can go short and terse, think about all the exceptions to the Fourth that get hung on "unreasonable" and "probable")


Clearly you can talk about politics any time you want. AFAIK only paid advertising is actually legislated against in oz.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report