Ever heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy?

I know what you're getting to, but I don't care anyways.

 

...............That I only support republicans, and it's nothing to be shy about anyways. Neither parties will be able to change the road the United States is in.

 

Well, no, that wasn't the point of my question actually. (For those who missed it, if it was Hillary and Ron, who would you vote for?)

Well, no, that wasn't the point of my question actually. (For those who missed it, if it was Hillary and Ron, who would you vote for?)

 

I would vote for any of the candidates over Rupaul, except Kucinich.

Hey, 8 to 5 now, my man Paul is making a come back!

Hey, 8 to 5 now, my man Paul is making a come back!

How about this: Obama gets to be 8/13 president and Paul gets to be 5/13 president. That sounds fair.

That I only support republicans, and it's nothing to be shy about anyways. .

 

Got it. Just pull one lever and be done with it. That's very efficient.

 

There's probably no need to waste time and effort with a bunch of annoying, independant facts and details like I've been doing. I'll bet I've wasted a lot time doing that. Could have been fishing.

 

Neither parties will be able to change the road the United States is in.

 

That's right. And it was very efficient thinking that got us here.

 

Maybe we should all stop wasting time and effort and just go ahead and kill ourselves now.....

Ha, I completely forgot about this.

 

SFN's preference for President is apparently Barack Obama. Now, how many electoral votes do we have?

None in my case. In your case you get a significant say on February 5th. You Tennesseeans have 68 delegates to commit, which would be a respectable number if not for the fact that California and New York got tired of being afterthoughts and moved theirs up to the same day. Now you're irrelevent again. Ironic, given that the whole point of Super Tuesday was to give the southern states electoral relevence.

 

(The mandate the national party offices laid down was that the states could not move their primaries ahead of February 5th. So of course 20-some states promptly moved their primaries up to February 5th, and now we have a 3-week nomination race instead of a 6-month nomination race. Sometimes you just have to laugh.)

Yeah... I'd be pretty bitter, too, if I lived in Florida.

None in my case. In your case you get a significant say on February 5th. You Tennesseeans have 68 delegates to commit, which would be a respectable number if not for the fact that California and New York got tired of being afterthoughts and moved theirs up to the same day. Now you're irrelevent again. Ironic, given that the whole point of Super Tuesday was to give the southern states electoral relevence.

 

(The mandate the national party offices laid down was that the states could not move their primaries ahead of February 5th. So of course 20-some states promptly moved their primaries up to February 5th, and now we have a 3-week nomination race instead of a 6-month nomination race. Sometimes you just have to laugh.)

 

I think this a good thing, however. No the media will have less power to control the nominations. I'm sick and tired of their 'predictions.'

The shortened cycle? I see your point there, but I'm concerned that it also takes power away from people. When you only have a few days to think about it, you might tend to grab on to what little you currently know. In a longer cycle you have more time to get to know the candidates, with "in-depth" interviews, background stories, and (when you get a round tuit) read up on the candidate's voting record.

 

I favored the one-big-primary approach earlier, but the more I think about it the more I like the "rotating regionals" concept.

I favored the one-big-primary approach earlier, but the more I think about it the more I like the "rotating regionals" concept.

 

My joke was in reference to the electoral college, but I agree. Regional primaries with proportional voting where you can vote for multiple candidates would be a better system.

The shortened cycle? I see your point there, but I'm concerned that it also takes power away from people. When you only have a few days to think about it, you might tend to grab on to what little you currently know. In a longer cycle you have more time to get to know the candidates, with "in-depth" interviews, background stories, and (when you get a round tuit) read up on the candidate's voting record.

 

I favored the one-big-primary approach earlier, but the more I think about it the more I like the "rotating regionals" concept.

 

Yeah, but then you also get politicians pandering to regional problems... The attention the republican candidates put on the auto industry in detroit, for example. If the auto's get a special deal from campaign promises, it's going to promote other states to move up their primaries in 2012.

 

I'd be a bigger fan of the current process if the same two states didn't get priority every single year. It should be on a rotating basis so no state gets too much power.

 

I'm not a huge fan of one-big primary, either though. I think it goes against the idea the founding father's had of a constitutional republic. It's a good thing that the current nomination process prevents mob rule, with the urban centers controlling the show. However, the process is outdated and could be streamlined. I think the problem is that people only complain about it once every 4 years, so there is little incentive to fix it.

Yeah, but then you also get politicians pandering to regional problems... The attention the republican candidates put on the auto industry in detroit, for example. If the auto's get a special deal from campaign promises, it's going to promote other states to move up their primaries in 2012.

 

I'd be a bigger fan of the current process if the same two states didn't get priority every single year. It should be on a rotating basis so no state gets too much power.

 

I'm confused how that would differ from the rotating regionals concept.