Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Wall Street Journal)   Now that we're fifteen days into the primary season, here's the media's coverage in a nutshell: "Are we there yet?"   (online.wsj.com) divider line
29
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

264 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jan 2008 at 8:36 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
Rev. Skarekroe
2008-01-18 6:15:19 PM  
No!
And if you don't pipe down I'll pull this country over and turn it right around!
 
Zarkin Frood
2008-01-18 7:03:37 PM  
That's because they're all left eating crow because they can't predict a damn thing right.
The media is so out of touch with reality, they think "reality" is reality. Pathetic.
 
Doggie McNugget
2008-01-18 7:35:55 PM  
What town are we in?
 
Magruda
2008-01-18 8:45:34 PM  
Zarkin Frood: That's because they're all left eating crow because they can't predict a damn thing right

Not really "predicting", more like, "attempting to manipulate".

They are a business with intrests too, and no oversite for fact checking.
 
Grand Architect
2008-01-18 8:46:44 PM  
CNN: "Mom Fox News is touching me again!"
Fox: "No I'm not!"
CNN: "Stop it!"
MSNBC: "I have to go to the bathroom."

/Been on my share of road trips.
//I've learned it's better to just sleep through it.
 
serpent_sky
2008-01-18 8:50:44 PM  
I don't see why the primaries aren't held on the same day in every state. It's not 1930, where they have to travel state to state to get their message across. People have TV/the Internet.

No matter who comes to NY, I know who I am voting for, regardless of what they attempt to tailor to NY.
 
Magruda
2008-01-18 8:52:18 PM  
serpent_sky: I don't see why the primaries aren't held on the same day in every state.

Try looking at it from the canidates perspective. It's easier to get a lie across if you only have to lie to a few people at a time.

Some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time.
 
serpent_sky
2008-01-18 8:57:57 PM  
Magruda: Try looking at it from the canidates perspective. It's easier to get a lie across if you only have to lie to a few people at a time.

Pointless, when everything is documented by 24/7 news and the Internet.

EVERYTHING is reported. May as well just get it all over on the same day.
 
Phil Moskowitz
2008-01-18 8:59:53 PM  
America getting sick of the old oligarchy by consent are they?
 
Something_Creative
2008-01-18 9:01:46 PM  
serpent_sky,

Along the same lines, I've always wondered why the residents of the particular state the candidate is in falls for the sweet talk every. single. time. Granted, you don't want to get behind the pulpit and yell that South Carolina is a shiathole, but each candidate pretends to be in love with whatever state they're in.
 
Grand Architect
2008-01-18 9:03:27 PM  
serpent_sky: Magruda: Try looking at it from the canidates perspective. It's easier to get a lie across if you only have to lie to a few people at a time.

Pointless, when everything is documented by 24/7 news and the Internet.

EVERYTHING is reported. May as well just get it all over on the same day.

Think of the early primaries like the NFL pre-season, it's a couple of games to see how well your game plan is working. Then you can make adjustments for the real games (super Tuesday).
 
Magruda
2008-01-18 9:04:05 PM  
serpent_sky: Pointless, when everything is documented by 24/7 news and the Internet

You are assuming the public will a) Pay attention or b) Remember or c) even know what it means. Think of the stupidest person you know. He's the average mean.
 
Shaggy_C
2008-01-18 9:05:53 PM  
Phil Moskowitz: America getting sick of the old oligarchy by consent are they?

The word you're looking for is 'plutocracy'. An oligarchy normally implies that it's impossible to make it into the upper echelon; a plutocracy allows you to get in, but it is based entirely upon wealth.
 
Shaggy_C
2008-01-18 9:06:55 PM  
Magruda: Think of the stupidest person you know. He's the average mean.

Magruda, if you're the mean, we're not so bad off after all :P
 
Magruda
2008-01-18 9:07:50 PM  
Shaggy_C: The word you're looking for is 'plutocracy'. An oligarchy normally implies that it's impossible to make it into the upper echelon; a plutocracy allows you to get in, but it is based entirely upon wealth.

Where does Idiocracy fall in that group?
 
serpent_sky
2008-01-18 9:09:52 PM  
Magruda: You are assuming the public will a) Pay attention or b) Remember or c) even know what it means. Think of the stupidest person you know. He's the average mean.

We're farked.
 
Magruda
2008-01-18 9:23:25 PM  
Shaggy_C: if you're the mean, we're not so bad off after all

I'm not that mean, i'm just rough around the edges.
 
Gosling
2008-01-18 9:24:07 PM  
serpent_sky: I don't see why the primaries aren't held on the same day in every state. It's not 1930, where they have to travel state to state to get their message across. People have TV/the Internet.

No matter who comes to NY, I know who I am voting for, regardless of what they attempt to tailor to NY.

The one that goes in with the most name recognition would win every time. This year, you'd have gotten Clinton/Giuliani and everyone else would have gotten drowned out.
 
Alphax
2008-01-18 9:24:30 PM  
Shaggy_C: The word you're looking for is 'plutocracy'. An oligarchy normally implies that it's impossible to make it into the upper echelon; a plutocracy allows you to get in, but it is based entirely upon wealth.

Well, Bill Clinton wasn't wealthy in 1992. Of course, that seemed to be part of the reason he was attacked before he was even sworn in. "How DARE you become President, you country bumpkin!"
 
serpent_sky
2008-01-18 9:33:53 PM  
Gosling:

The one that goes in with the most name recognition would win every time. This year, you'd have gotten Clinton/Giuliani and everyone else would have gotten drowned out.

I honesty would be shocked to death if Giuliani won New York.

I was hoping for Kuchinich to make an impact;

I'm fully supporting Obama at this point.

So in a sense, I see what you're saying... I probably would have voted for the guy I believed in, rather than the guy I considered the least evil of those with a shot in hell.
 
moothemagiccow
2008-01-18 10:24:31 PM  
Zarkin Frood: That's because they're all left eating crow because they can't predict a damn thing right.
The media is so out of touch with reality, they think "reality" is reality. Pathetic.

It's usually done by now.
 
Neeek
2008-01-18 10:38:42 PM  
Alphax: Well, Bill Clinton wasn't wealthy in 1992. Of course, that seemed to be part of the reason he was attacked before he was even sworn in. "How DARE you become President, you country bumpkin!"

Obama could hardly be considered wealthy either, and he's more likely than anyone to win the election.
 
quatchi
2008-01-18 11:31:47 PM  
I don't see why the primaries aren't held on the same day in every state. It's not 1930, where they have to travel state to state to get their message across. People have TV/the Internet.

Failing that why don't they at least switch 'em up every year so that whoever went first last time goes last time and so on and so forth. Seriously, a little kids T-ball league is run more fairly that the electoral process in the US.
 
worlddan
2008-01-18 11:49:26 PM  
serpent_sky: I don't see why the primaries aren't held on the same day in every state. It's not 1930, where they have to travel state to state to get their message across. People have TV/the Internet.

No matter who comes to NY, I know who I am voting for, regardless of what they attempt to tailor to NY.


Of which about only 1/10 do. Most people need to be told who to vote for because they are either too lazy, dumb, and/or uninterested to figure it out on their own.
 
SomeoneDumb
2008-01-19 1:28:09 AM  
I think a lot of people wait until they see TV commercials before deciding who to vote for. The way the primaries are laid out, the candidates don't have to advertise in all the states, which saves them money.

They do well in one state, get more support and money, and use that to run ads in the next state. Wipe hands, repeat.

/I don't care for the system, but I understand it.
 
Rethorn
2008-01-19 2:39:57 AM  
The press may have lost its ability to hound a candidate out of the race--a long-term consequence of Hillary's bolt-from-the-blue victory in New Hampshire.

Ugh. Why does everyone say this?! She had NH in the bag. Everyone knew it for ages, then when she wins, they all say, "Holy shiat, the guy who never had a chance in NH lost! This is a great day for Hillary!"
 
MrTwist
2008-01-19 4:24:40 AM  
The Wall Street Journal has turned into Fox News Print Edition™ since Rupert Murdoch (the guy who owns FOX) bought it.

Seriously, it's a rag.
 
magores
2008-01-19 6:24:38 AM  
serpent_sky: I don't see why the primaries aren't held on the same day in every state. It's not 1930, where they have to travel state to state to get their message across. People have TV/the Internet.

My thought is:

1. Divide the country into 5 regions (similar to the way they do it in sports.)
2. All states in a single region vote on the same day.
3. One region per month for 5 months
4. The order of regions rotates each election (first this time is last next time, 2nd becomes first, etc.)

You could even have 1 voting month before all the regular ones. The smallest state from each region votes on the same day in the first month. (Or, the different states could decide amongst their own region who goes first.) Then, the regular rotation kicks in.

Seems fair to me.
-Politicians only have to focus on a particular region at a time.
-Keeps the weeding out process for non-viable candidates
-Most areas will only have to put up with the heavy ad-blitzes, etc for the month leading up to their turn.
-Stops the jockeying for position amongst the states for "firstness"
 
Opiate of the Lasses
2008-01-19 11:25:49 AM  
Neeek: Alphax: Obama could hardly be considered wealthy either, and he's more likely than anyone to win the election.

The betting money would beg to disagree (pops).

I want Obama to win, but I think the combination of Hilary's super-delegates, women secretly voting for her if Obama falls too much behind and her not being above dirty tricks (pops) will be enough to push her over the top. About the only thing that could derail Hilary now is if she says attractive and successful African-American out loud somewhere, or Edward's badly disguised plan to give Obama his delegates in return for VP somehow works.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Can't get enough Fark in your life? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.