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.

(Yahoo)   It's time for the whiny "The caucus is elitist and unfair" editorials. Next up: The whiny "let's get money out of politics" editorials and the even more whiny "won't get fooled again" editorials   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
65
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

436 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2008 at 2:45 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



65 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-08-05 11:23:30 AM  
Pissing and moaning after the fact. It's the American way!
 
AzDownboy
2008-08-05 11:31:45 AM  
The timeliness of this article is stunning

Lanny Davis is a prominent Washington lawyer and a political analyst for Fox News.

I was wondering why he used "elitist" in the first sentence.
 
I_Hate_Iowa
2008-08-05 12:14:16 PM  
The nominating process doesn't have to be democratic. The Democratic Party is a private group that just happens to wield enormous power in our elections. It isn't a branch of the government. Any other group could theoretically wield the same power. They can make whatever rules they want for saying "This is how we choose our candidate."
 
MasterThief
2008-08-05 12:22:07 PM  

I_Hate_Iowa: The nominating process doesn't have to be democratic. The Democratic Party is a private group that just happens to wield enormous power in our elections. It isn't a branch of the government. Any other group could theoretically wield the same power. They can make whatever rules they want for saying "This is how we choose our candidate."


You would think that a... no, THE Democratic Party would adopt a method of selecting presidential candidates that was actually democratic. Unless they're hankering for an "Ironic" tag.
 
GAT_00
2008-08-05 12:37:43 PM  
You know who else won't get fooled again?
 
Sleeping Monkey
2008-08-05 1:03:46 PM  
America has already been fooled again.
 
what_now
2008-08-05 1:10:03 PM  

MasterThief: You would think that a... no, THE Democratic Party would adopt a method of selecting presidential candidates that was actually democratic. Unless they're hankering for an "Ironic" tag.


They did. These people are whining because they didn't like the results of that process, so they want to change it to make it LESS Democratic.
 
GurneyHalleck
2008-08-05 1:29:47 PM  
America has been fooled so many times that the word "again" has lost its meaning.
 
Harvey Birdman
2008-08-05 2:06:19 PM  
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
Darconix
2008-08-05 2:47:54 PM  

I_Hate_Iowa: The nominating process doesn't have to be democratic. The Democratic Party is a private group that just happens to wield enormous power in our elections. It isn't a branch of the government. Any other group could theoretically wield the same power. They can make whatever rules they want for saying "This is how we choose our candidate."


Then why the gnashing of teeth over Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" if it isn't a democratic process to begin with?
 
xanadian [TotalFark]
2008-08-05 2:49:29 PM  

GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?


Who?
 
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer
2008-08-05 2:50:16 PM  
The Founding Fathers were elitist and unfair too. I kinda like smart people in government, but I am aware that most voters prefer idiots who are "like them and they could have a beer with."

Anyway, the Republican Party is far more elitist than the Democrats any day of the week.
 
Ace Frehley's Ghost
2008-08-05 2:50:59 PM  

xanadian: GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?

Who?


That's right, who won't get fooled again.
 
RemyDuron
2008-08-05 2:52:03 PM  

MasterThief: I_Hate_Iowa: The nominating process doesn't have to be democratic. The Democratic Party is a private group that just happens to wield enormous power in our elections. It isn't a branch of the government. Any other group could theoretically wield the same power. They can make whatever rules they want for saying "This is how we choose our candidate."

You would think that a... no, THE Democratic Party would adopt a method of selecting presidential candidates that was actually democratic. Unless they're hankering for an "Ironic" tag.


Uh, it was democratic, caucuses are perfectly democratic.
 
Karma Curmudgeon
2008-08-05 2:52:11 PM  
From: How can that be small "d" Democratic?

to: Abolishing proportional representation and requiring winner-take-all for winners of state primaries

in two paragraphs. Good jorb Lanny!1!one1!
 
RemyDuron
2008-08-05 2:53:42 PM  
You know what's not democratic? Winner take all elections in every state.
 
Jackpot777
2008-08-05 2:54:54 PM  

GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?


Who?

Oh, I see what you did there. Bravo, sir. Well played.
 
dmort
2008-08-05 2:55:15 PM  
Lanny Davis has been a prominent Hillary supporter, now pushing for her as the VP pick (new window). I would have gotten away with it too, if not for those meddling caucuses, etc, etc....
Shouldn't these people be in the "acceptance" stage of grief by now?
 
Edsel
2008-08-05 2:55:52 PM  
Lanny, she lost. Get over it.
 
xanadian [TotalFark]
2008-08-05 2:55:56 PM  

Jackpot777: GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?

Who?

Oh, I see what you did there. Bravo, sir. Well played.


The name of the band.

Who.

The band on stage.

Who!

The name of the band on stage!!

WHO!
 
Shrugging Atlas
2008-08-05 2:58:51 PM  
Odd no Democrats had a problem with caucuses back when Bill Clinton used them to get the nomination.
 
Cinaed
2008-08-05 2:58:59 PM  
Is it wrong to view the entire bloc of eligible voters and cringe, and actually look to an elitist system to stave off a rampaging rush of ignorance and petty bullshiat?
 
guilt by association
2008-08-05 3:01:01 PM  
Written by Lanny Davis. Surprise, surprise.
 
Yoweigh
2008-08-05 3:02:45 PM  

RemyDuron: You know what's not democratic? Winner take all elections in every state.


Yeah, but that seems to work out in their favor most of the time so it's ok.
 
Darconix
2008-08-05 3:05:37 PM  

RemyDuron: You know what's not democratic? Winner take all elections in every state.


Do you really want to ensure a permanent Republican majority by forcing California to split their delegates?
 
MrGumboPants
2008-08-05 3:07:48 PM  
I got no problem with the idea that individual states may want to do away with caucuses and put in primaries instead.

But in the end, it's up to people in those states to make up their minds about how they want to represent themselves to the parties. I live in a primary state, and it seems reasonable to me. But I don't think we should be telling Iowa what to do. Let the Iowans decide.
 
robsul82
2008-08-05 3:10:16 PM  
I think I know Lanny's Fark login. Has something to do with a sitcom character from the 60s.
 
carmody
2008-08-05 3:10:39 PM  
"Let's get money out of politics."

Amen. Until then, our democracy is nothing but a corporate feeding trough.
 
Shaggy_C
2008-08-05 3:12:05 PM  
Caucuses favor sweaty, low-income slobs who don't have jobs and can waste a weekday hanging around other sweaty, low-income slobs in a high school gymnasium. What could be more appealing to Democrats?

/low hanging :P
 
joegekko
2008-08-05 3:13:47 PM  

Jackpot777: GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?

Who?

Oh, I see what you did there. Bravo, sir. Well played.


i29.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
Guntram Shatterhand
2008-08-05 3:14:32 PM  

Edsel: Lanny, she lost. Get over it.


More like 'Lanny, she lost and was a big dick about it. She tried to play politics during a primary contest that had more to do with her incompetence in dealing with her campaign and was schooled. She was insulting to Obama when she offered him the VPship when she was losing and now has basically been such a bastard that she won't be VP. It's over, it's done, she lost it and it's basically all of her fault for running such a shiatty campaign.'
 
Martstar
2008-08-05 3:20:13 PM  

GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?


mog.comView Full Size
 
Manfred J. Hattan
2008-08-05 3:20:25 PM  
TFA: "Second, caucuses are frequently gross violations of the one person-one vote principle that I always thought was protected under leading Supreme Court cases."

This guy thinks the Supreme Court cases cover how a party selects its candidates? Really? Really? And he graduated law school?

Jebus, liberals are so damn dumb sometimes. No wonder Clinton lied to that judge. He was surrounded by idiots like Lanny Davis. "No, it's OK Mr. President. She blew you, you didn't blow her, so she had sexual relations with you but not you with her. Brilliant!"
 
MyRandomName
2008-08-05 3:21:15 PM  
The one problem with a Caucus is the ability to pressure people into joining one's side. There is no way to vote without others seeing how you voted. This could cause someone to change their vote for a myriad of reasons... say your whole family votes for someone so you join them as familial pressure even if you prefer the other candidate.

There is a reason the founding fathers made votes anonymous.
 
log_jammin
2008-08-05 3:24:26 PM  
That article is talkin bout my generation.
 
MonkeyAngst
2008-08-05 3:24:33 PM  
I'd be willing to tolerate "Won't get fooled again" editorials if the writers actually performed the requisite powerslide and scream.
 
p0tat0_dude
2008-08-05 3:31:35 PM  

Darconix: RemyDuron: You know what's not democratic? Winner take all elections in every state.

Do you really want to ensure a permanent Republican majority by forcing California to split their delegates?


False argument. Big Republican-leaning states like Florida and Texas would get their delegates split just as much as Democratic-leaning ones like New York and California would. It all balances out in the end.
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2008-08-05 3:34:13 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: From: How can that be small "d" Democratic?

to: Abolishing proportional representation and requiring winner-take-all for winners of state primaries

in two paragraphs. Good jorb Lanny!1!one1!


Allow me to translate the title and byline:
"The Democratic Party should make it easier for someone like Hillary to win"
By: One of Hillary's "strategists" who never bothered to read the rules of the Democratic nominating process and thus got smoked by Obama's people


and isn't just amazing at how many of Hillary's people, supposedly staunch Democrats all, have gone to work for Fox News?
 
MrGumboPants
2008-08-05 3:37:42 PM  

p0tat0_dude: Darconix: RemyDuron: You know what's not democratic? Winner take all elections in every state.

Do you really want to ensure a permanent Republican majority by forcing California to split their delegates?

False argument. Big Republican-leaning states like Florida and Texas would get their delegates split just as much as Democratic-leaning ones like New York and California would. It all balances out in the end.


More than balances, probably. Republicans should not want split delegates from states, because the shift in electoral strategy would favor large urban areas and their left leaning voters. Right now Republicans can afford to ignore NY, Chicago, LA, Seattle, etc. Those delegates are locked up. The current system partly marginalizes those folks in an effort to make the smaller states worth something.

Once you'd start splitting, the urban population centers would take on a much more prominent role.
 
CagedDepravity
2008-08-05 3:44:32 PM  

MrGumboPants: The current system partly marginalizes those folks in an effort to make the smaller states worth something.



So if you are from a big city, your opinion/vote should count less than someone who lives in the sticks?
 
skookum
2008-08-05 3:45:00 PM  
The truth is that you will be fooled if you make the mistake of voting Obama in this election.

Even if he does manage to win this election, he will be expected to carry out current policy in much the same way with little deviation.

Unfortunately, he will also use his Presidency to try some very ill-advised social programs which will waste millions of dollars. Republicans at least realize that you cannot throw money at a problem and expect to solve it.
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2008-08-05 3:45:23 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Edsel: Lanny, she lost. Get over it.

More like 'Lanny, she lost and was a big dick about it. She tried to play politics during a primary contest that had more to do with her incompetence in dealing with her campaign and was schooled. She was insulting to Obama when she offered him the VPship when she was losing and now has basically been such a bastard that she won't be VP. It's over, it's done, she lost it and it's basically all of her fault for running such a shiatty campaign.'


You know why Clinton got smoked in all the caucuses? From all reports I got from all over the country; it was because while a primary election does require you to interact with anyone, caucuses require you to try to talk to and convince other blocks of voters to support your candidate. Apparently, Hillary's supporters were such insufferable asshats that the undecided/minor candidate supporters in the room turned to Obama instead time and time again.

Which makes sense, Hillary's strategy was always to pursue the "low information voter" basically an uniformed tool who could be easily demagogued. Herding folks like that to the polls is pretty easy. Getting them to articulate your message in a way that appeals to another person is pretty hard.
 
CustomAndy
2008-08-05 3:45:46 PM  
Lanny Davis is such a whiner. I really don't think anyone can take his dumb ass seriously anymore.
 
MrGumboPants
2008-08-05 3:46:54 PM  

CagedDepravity: So if you are from a big city, your opinion/vote should count less than someone who lives in the sticks?


Haha, I'm a big city Democrat. Just calling it like I see it.

That said, an attempt to change the system would definitely meet strong resistance from the states that would lose some amount of influence -- and obviously, if you're a Republican, you don't want to see proportional delegate assignment either.
 
pmccall
2008-08-05 3:52:13 PM  
FTFA

* Abolishing proportional representation and requiring winner-take-all for winners of state primaries (bringing the nominating system into alignment with the electoral college system for electing presidents -- isn't that what this is supposed to be all about -- electing a president?

* Limiting primaries to pre-registered Democrats, rather than allowing Rush Limbaugh and others to encourage independents and Republicans to do same day re-registration, motivated only by mischief to muck up the Democratic results;

So, it needs to be more like the general election where it is winner-takes-all...

...Except it needs to be less like the general election where you can vote for any party you want on election day.

Lanny's such a freaking hack, he couldn't even be troubled enough by the inconsistency to separate the two bullets in his own article.

/That said, I agree with him on eliminating super-delegates and having a small number of regional primaries

//Also, if he's so concerned about more people being able to vote, where's his bullet point about moving from mostly Tuesday primaries to universal Saturday-Sunday primaries
 
burndtdan
2008-08-05 3:58:26 PM  

GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?


i don't know but i hear he's on first.
 
dracos31
2008-08-05 3:59:18 PM  

skookum: The truth is that you will be fooled if you make the mistake of voting Obama in this election.

Even if he does manage to win this election, he will be expected to carry out current policy in much the same way with little deviation.

Unfortunately, he will also use his Presidency to try some very ill-advised social programs which will waste millions of dollars. Republicans at least realize that you cannot throw money at a problem and expect to solve it.


Wait...I thought you said before that the True Powers in D.C. wouldn't allow him to be President...is this a Skookum flip-flop?
 
rjShadow
2008-08-05 4:07:35 PM  
Jesus. Some people don't like Obama. They can't believe they "lost". Funny thing is, they will lose even bigger in about 90 days.

You can't blame everything on one guy. Turn the mirror on yourself.
 
Karma Curmudgeon
2008-08-05 4:08:21 PM  

Magorn: and isn't just amazing at how many of Hillary's people, supposedly staunch Democrats all, have gone to work for Fox News?


Amazing is one word for it.

GAT_00: You know who else won't get fooled again?


O'RLY?
 
skookum
2008-08-05 4:11:05 PM  

dracos31: Wait...I thought you said before that the True Powers in D.C. wouldn't allow him to be President...is this a Skookum flip-flop?


It's just as much of a surprise to me. Obama is learning the proper way to the Oval Office, and has finally dropped many of his left-leaning ideals to approach his candidacy pragmatically.

But nonetheless, so far, McCain still has this election sewn up, I was simply pointing out that Obama is making efforts to improve his image and to embrace current policy, not shirk away from it like some Communist.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



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

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come check out what's behind the curtain.

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.