|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2024 10:47:56 GMT -5
RCP data is here: www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-bidenTrump is at 50% or better in 3 of the current polls (CBS, Harvard-Harris and TheMessenger-HarrisX). Last time Biden got to 50% in any poll was a Marquette poll in July where both candidates tied at 50-50. The only current poll where Trump trails Biden is TheEconomist/YouGov which has Biden up 1 at 44-43. The previous poll that had Biden ahead was a Morning Consult poll that had Biden up 42-43, but that same poll now has Trump up 45-40.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 24, 2024 10:52:49 GMT -5
If you're going to call yourself "aggressively neutral" try to live up to that moniker. I shouldn't have to do your work for you to achieve that. I explained the context of "Agressively Neutral". I was making fun of the US state department's criticism of Imran Khan's neutral stance on the Ukraine war. Being neutral doesn't mean never having my own opinions. Stop whining. For someone who says he's certain that Biden will win in 2024, you don't seem confident. I've never said that.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 24, 2024 10:53:11 GMT -5
RCP data is here: www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-bidenTrump is at 50% or better in 3 of the current polls (CBS, Harvard-Harris and TheMessenger-HarrisX). Last time Biden got to 50% in any poll was a Marquette poll in July where both candidates tied at 50-50. The only current poll where Trump trails Biden is TheEconomist/YouGov which has Biden up 1 at 44-43. The previous poll that had Biden ahead was a Morning Consult poll that had Biden up 42-43, but that same poll now has Trump up 45-40. I think the election could go either way still but as I've noted in the past, Biden never trailed Trump in the polling averages in 2020. So there are reasons for Dems to be concerned.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 24, 2024 10:54:30 GMT -5
RCP data is here: www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-bidenTrump is at 50% or better in 3 of the current polls (CBS, Harvard-Harris and TheMessenger-HarrisX). Last time Biden got to 50% in any poll was a Marquette poll in July where both candidates tied at 50-50. The only current poll where Trump trails Biden is TheEconomist/YouGov which has Biden up 1 at 44-43. The previous poll that had Biden ahead was a Morning Consult poll that had Biden up 42-43, but that same poll now has Trump up 45-40. I think the election could go either way still but as I've noted in the past, Biden never trailed Trump in the polling averages in 2020. So there are reasons for Dems to be concerned. Agree. If Republicans could drag themselves away from Trump and nominate Haley the election would be in the bag. But they'll need a few hail marys and some of Trump's election rigging tricks to pull off a win.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Jan 24, 2024 11:07:42 GMT -5
I think the election could go either way still but as I've noted in the past, Biden never trailed Trump in the polling averages in 2020. So there are reasons for Dems to be concerned. Agree. If Republicans could drag themselves away from Trump and nominate Haley the election would be in the bag. But they'll need a few hail marys and some of Trump's election rigging tricks to pull off a win. I question that. There are enough MAGA cultists who I don't see voting for anyone not Trump. It's abnormal I know.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2024 11:49:38 GMT -5
RCP data is here: www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-bidenTrump is at 50% or better in 3 of the current polls (CBS, Harvard-Harris and TheMessenger-HarrisX). Last time Biden got to 50% in any poll was a Marquette poll in July where both candidates tied at 50-50. The only current poll where Trump trails Biden is TheEconomist/YouGov which has Biden up 1 at 44-43. The previous poll that had Biden ahead was a Morning Consult poll that had Biden up 42-43, but that same poll now has Trump up 45-40. I think the election could go either way still but as I've noted in the past, Biden never trailed Trump in the polling averages in 2020. So there are reasons for Dems to be concerned. Too much time between now and November, and too many health and legal things that could up end either candidate to predict this far out. But yes, your observation is important. And candidates topping 50 percent in polling is a strong performance. Trump is probably getting a little boost from the other GOP candidates dropping out and forcing Republicans to coalesce around Trump.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 15:21:46 GMT -5
Since this is a general thread, general question: why the hell are the primaries so staggered? Maryland's isn't until May 14th and others are in June. Talk about disenfranchisement. I think it is left over from an era when travel was more difficult and telecommunications (radio) was still very new. In addition, the staggered primary system theoretically enables a lesser known candidate to emerge (think Jimmy Carter) in the sense that a candidate without a lot of money can go camp out in Iowa or New Hampshire, press the flesh, and gain notoriety via a strong finish. That is less likely in a national primary. It has also been somewhat negated by Super Tuesday which requires a candidate to have national reach i.e. money. It is worth remembering that in the 2008 democratic primary between Obama didn't secure the nomination until pretty late in the process so those late voting states did matter. If I was king of the world, I would do away with Super Tuesday because I do think it favors those candidates that can amass money. Also, the original idea behind Super Tuesday was that these states would gain more clout by combining their delegates into one contest. I think it sort of does the opposite. Finally, I actually think the longer process helps as it kind of gives voters a chance to really examine candidates under demanding circumstances over the course of an extended period.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 15:29:44 GMT -5
Agree. If Republicans could drag themselves away from Trump and nominate Haley the election would be in the bag. But they'll need a few hail marys and some of Trump's election rigging tricks to pull off a win. I question that. There are enough MAGA cultists who I don't see voting for anyone not Trump. It's abnormal I know. There's also the question of whether Trump endorses or what he does if he doesn't get the nomination.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 15:37:09 GMT -5
Biden has vulnerabilities as well which I'm sure Soul will be quick to point out but Trump has a serious problem if a significant percentage of GOP voters and independents won't vote for him under any circumstance. Trump has a high floor of support (his MAGA base) but a low ceiling - one of the reasons that a third party candidate almost ensures a Trump victory. www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/politics/trump-independent-voters.html
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Jan 24, 2024 15:47:54 GMT -5
Biden has vulnerabilities as well which I'm sure Soul will be quick to point out but Trump has a serious problem if a significant percentage of GOP voters and independents won't vote for him under any circumstance. Trump has a high floor of support (his MAGA base) but a low ceiling - one of the reasons that a third party candidate almost ensures a Trump victory. www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/politics/trump-independent-voters.htmlSo turns out people don't want a grifter as POTUS. He's going to drag the GOP down with him. Again. Fascinating in a strange way. Like watching lemmings.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 24, 2024 15:48:41 GMT -5
Biden has vulnerabilities as well which I'm sure Soul will be quick to point out but Trump has a serious problem if a significant percentage of GOP voters and independents won't vote for him under any circumstance. Trump has a high floor of support (his MAGA base) but a low ceiling - one of the reasons that a third party candidate almost ensures a Trump victory. I wouldn't read too much into the primary exit polling in terms of what will happen in the GE. Primary voter turnout is typically far lower than November voter turnout. While I broadly agree that Trump may have problems with Independents in the general election, the general election polls show otherwise (For now. Trends can always reverse course). See the latest YouGov and Morning Consult national polls for example. Biden trails Trump with Indies in both polls.
|
|
|
Post by Rael on Jan 24, 2024 15:54:59 GMT -5
Agree. If Republicans could drag themselves away from Trump and nominate Haley the election would be in the bag. But they'll need a few hail marys and some of Trump's election rigging tricks to pull off a win. I question that. There are enough MAGA cultists who I don't see voting for anyone not Trump. It's abnormal I know. That would likely depend on Trump. If he were to somehow lose the nomination, would he run third party? My belief is his vindictiveness would require him to try to tank Haley's chances. He ain't no conservative, he is a Trumpist, first, last, and always.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 15:56:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 15:56:41 GMT -5
I question that. There are enough MAGA cultists who I don't see voting for anyone not Trump. It's abnormal I know. That would likely depend on Trump. If he were to somehow lose the nomination, would he run third party? My belief is his vindictiveness would require him to try to tank Haley's chances. He ain't no conservative, he is a Trumpist, first, last, and always. I agree
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Jan 24, 2024 16:27:56 GMT -5
Not as critical as it once was. But unions are on the upswing. Biggest benefit will be lots of bodies on the ground to goose up the ground game.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 16:34:09 GMT -5
Biden has vulnerabilities as well which I'm sure Soul will be quick to point out but Trump has a serious problem if a significant percentage of GOP voters and independents won't vote for him under any circumstance. Trump has a high floor of support (his MAGA base) but a low ceiling - one of the reasons that a third party candidate almost ensures a Trump victory. I wouldn't read too much into the primary exit polling in terms of what will happen in the GE. Primary voter turnout is typically far lower than November voter turnout. While I broadly agree that Trump may have problems with Independents in the general election, the general election polls show otherwise (For now. Trends can always reverse course). See the latest YouGov and Morning Consult national polls for example. Biden trails Trump with Indies in both polls. The bigger issue is that if there is a significant percentage of registered Republicans who will not vote for Trump under any circumstance, it is a problem for Trump. 5% may not be decisive but 10 to 30 percent is a big deal. We saw this phenomenon in 2020 and we may be seeing it again in 2024.
|
|
up2
Full Member
Posts: 1,867
|
Post by up2 on Jan 24, 2024 16:37:59 GMT -5
Not as critical as it once was. But unions are on the upswing. Biggest benefit will be lots of bodies on the ground to goose up the ground game. I would think the ground game in the manufacturing states, most of which are presumably swing states is a good thing. What remains to be seen is how those blue collar workers respond to this however.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 24, 2024 16:41:26 GMT -5
I wouldn't read too much into the primary exit polling in terms of what will happen in the GE. Primary voter turnout is typically far lower than November voter turnout. While I broadly agree that Trump may have problems with Independents in the general election, the general election polls show otherwise (For now. Trends can always reverse course). See the latest YouGov and Morning Consult national polls for example. Biden trails Trump with Indies in both polls. The bigger issue is that if there is a significant percentage of registered Republicans who will not vote for Trump under any circumstance, it is a problem for Trump. 5% may not be decisive but 10 to 30 percent is a big deal. We saw this phenomenon in 2020 and we may be seeing it again in 2024. Perhaps. Wouldn’t read too much into it at this point. Happens every election. I’m old enough to remember Hillary primary voters saying they’d never vote for Obama…
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 24, 2024 17:06:28 GMT -5
Since this is a general thread, general question: why the hell are the primaries so staggered? Maryland's isn't until May 14th and others are in June. Talk about disenfranchisement. I think it is left over from an era when travel was more difficult and telecommunications (radio) was still very new. In addition, the staggered primary system theoretically enables a lesser known candidate to emerge (think Jimmy Carter) in the sense that a candidate without a lot of money can go camp out in Iowa or New Hampshire, press the flesh, and gain notoriety via a strong finish. That is less likely in a national primary. It has also been somewhat negated by Super Tuesday which requires a candidate to have national reach i.e. money. It is worth remembering that in the 2008 democratic primary between Obama didn't secure the nomination until pretty late in the process so those late voting states did matter. If I was king of the world, I would do away with Super Tuesday because I do think it favors those candidates that can amass money. Also, the original idea behind Super Tuesday was that these states would gain more clout by combining their delegates into one contest. I think it sort of does the opposite. Finally, I actually think the longer process helps as it kind of gives voters a chance to really examine candidates under demanding circumstances over the course of an extended period. As much as I'd like to agree with you across the board ..... and much of it I do.....I totally disagree with a longer process. IMHO, I think the 'longer process' is in a way directly the reason why we voters are dealing with all this BS because of the long drawn out process(es). Ok one place is caucus, one place is voting, one place allows voting and changing parties and then going back. (I dunno, this crap about going to a polling place, changing parties, voting for an inept candidate, then being able to switch back in the primary is BS) Anyway. Back to my point. Ever hear the phrase 'fish or cut bait'? Our problem now with the way the electoral system is set up is that 'cutting bait' is a self sustaining money making and power gathering process. It is NOT about finding out about what the voters really want. My take is this on what should be done: Since the SC f'd everything up with who can contribute (companies are people 🤣). Then it is time to curtail the timeframes. Like: No one can talk about running, nor collect monies, till a year before the actual election. No signing up for another term as Trump did the day after he took office. Do it an you are disqualified. I know it is a pipe dream. But it seems you work fine in Britain. Hell their politicians have less than 6 months to do what OURs do for like 4 years for god sake. They aren't even allowed to campaign .... speeches.... finding more donors..... a week before the actual elections. They get found out..... they are done..... no BS.... they are off the ticket..... EOS. www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/pre-election-period/what-pre-election-period-means-practice
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 17:09:27 GMT -5
The bigger issue is that if there is a significant percentage of registered Republicans who will not vote for Trump under any circumstance, it is a problem for Trump. 5% may not be decisive but 10 to 30 percent is a big deal. We saw this phenomenon in 2020 and we may be seeing it again in 2024. Perhaps. Wouldn’t read too much into it at this point. Happens every election. I’m old enough to remember Hillary primary voters saying they’d never vote for Obama… But we saw it happen in 2020. Not polls. Actual voters
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 24, 2024 17:09:51 GMT -5
The bigger issue is that if there is a significant percentage of registered Republicans who will not vote for Trump under any circumstance, it is a problem for Trump. 5% may not be decisive but 10 to 30 percent is a big deal. We saw this phenomenon in 2020 and we may be seeing it again in 2024. Perhaps. Wouldn’t read too much into it at this point. Happens every election. I’m old enough to remember Hillary primary voters saying they’d never vote for Obama… I had to hold my nose when I voted for Hillary. And only because Depends man stunk more. Obviously, it was to no avail. Hillary definitely had the political 'chops' but on a personal level, meaning appealing to the 'common man/women' she had zip. That said, Donnie had zip appeal as well. Sorry to say but IMHO both were elitists in their own way. But at least in Hillary's case, you might be able to negotiate and come to middle ground..... or close. Donnie? BAaawwwwaahhhhahhahhhahhahhaaa
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 17:11:07 GMT -5
I think it is left over from an era when travel was more difficult and telecommunications (radio) was still very new. In addition, the staggered primary system theoretically enables a lesser known candidate to emerge (think Jimmy Carter) in the sense that a candidate without a lot of money can go camp out in Iowa or New Hampshire, press the flesh, and gain notoriety via a strong finish. That is less likely in a national primary. It has also been somewhat negated by Super Tuesday which requires a candidate to have national reach i.e. money. It is worth remembering that in the 2008 democratic primary between Obama didn't secure the nomination until pretty late in the process so those late voting states did matter. If I was king of the world, I would do away with Super Tuesday because I do think it favors those candidates that can amass money. Also, the original idea behind Super Tuesday was that these states would gain more clout by combining their delegates into one contest. I think it sort of does the opposite. Finally, I actually think the longer process helps as it kind of gives voters a chance to really examine candidates under demanding circumstances over the course of an extended period.As much as I'd like to agree with you across the board ..... and much of it I do.....I totally disagree with a longer process. IMHO, I think the 'longer process' is in a way directly the reason why we voters are dealing with all this BS because of the long drawn out process(es). Ok one place is caucus, one place is voting, one place allows voting and changing parties and then going back. (I dunno, this crap about going to a polling place, changing parties, voting for an inept candidate, then being able to switch back in the primary is BS) Anyway. Back to my point. Ever hear the phrase 'fish or cut bait'? Our problem now with the way the electoral system is set up is that 'cutting bait' is a self sustaining money making and power gathering process. It is NOT about finding out about what the voters really want. My take is this on what should be done: Since the SC f'd everything up with who can contribute (companies are people 🤣). Then it is time to curtail the timeframes. Like: No one can talk about running, nor collect monies, till a year before the actual election. No signing up for another term as Trump did the day after he took office. Do it an you are disqualified. I know it is a pipe dream. But it seems you work fine in Britain. Hell their politicians have less than 6 months to do what OURs do for like 4 years for god sake. They aren't even allowed to campaign .... speeches.... finding more donors..... a week before the actual elections. They get found out..... they are done..... no BS.... they are off the ticket..... EOS. www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/pre-election-period/what-pre-election-period-means-practice To your point, other countries, Canada comes to mind, have much shorter elections. The Prime Minister calls and election and it's over within a couple of months total.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jan 24, 2024 17:15:07 GMT -5
Since this is a general thread, general question: why the hell are the primaries so staggered? Maryland's isn't until May 14th and others are in June. Talk about disenfranchisement. I think it is left over from an era when travel was more difficult and telecommunications (radio) was still very new. In addition, the staggered primary system theoretically enables a lesser known candidate to emerge (think Jimmy Carter) in the sense that a candidate without a lot of money can go camp out in Iowa or New Hampshire, press the flesh, and gain notoriety via a strong finish. That is less likely in a national primary. It has also been somewhat negated by Super Tuesday which requires a candidate to have national reach i.e. money. It is worth remembering that in the 2008 democratic primary between Obama didn't secure the nomination until pretty late in the process so those late voting states did matter. If I was king of the world, I would do away with Super Tuesday because I do think it favors those candidates that can amass money. Also, the original idea behind Super Tuesday was that these states would gain more clout by combining their delegates into one contest. I think it sort of does the opposite. Finally, I actually think the longer process helps as it kind of gives voters a chance to really examine candidates under demanding circumstances over the course of an extended period. I think the entire primary season should be reduced to two weeks, held 5 months before the election. All the longer season does is increase the cost of running for office, essentially making candidates available to the highest bidder.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Jan 24, 2024 17:17:51 GMT -5
I think it is left over from an era when travel was more difficult and telecommunications (radio) was still very new. In addition, the staggered primary system theoretically enables a lesser known candidate to emerge (think Jimmy Carter) in the sense that a candidate without a lot of money can go camp out in Iowa or New Hampshire, press the flesh, and gain notoriety via a strong finish. That is less likely in a national primary. It has also been somewhat negated by Super Tuesday which requires a candidate to have national reach i.e. money. It is worth remembering that in the 2008 democratic primary between Obama didn't secure the nomination until pretty late in the process so those late voting states did matter. If I was king of the world, I would do away with Super Tuesday because I do think it favors those candidates that can amass money. Also, the original idea behind Super Tuesday was that these states would gain more clout by combining their delegates into one contest. I think it sort of does the opposite. Finally, I actually think the longer process helps as it kind of gives voters a chance to really examine candidates under demanding circumstances over the course of an extended period. I think the entire primary season should be reduced to two weeks, held 5 months before the election. All the longer season does is increase the cost of running for office, essentially making candidates available to the highest bidder. Agree. Another bad outcome: the glut of political ads drive up the cost of advertising. Particularly hurts local businesses.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 17:18:29 GMT -5
So turns out people don't want a grifter as POTUS. He's going to drag the GOP down with him. Again. Fascinating in a strange way. Like watching lemmings. I don't want to get burned again by making predictions but we're supposed to believe that moderate Republicans and Independent women who were repulsed by Trump in 2020 and then witnessed what he unleashed on January 6th are somehow going to come back to Trump in 2024? A lot of these people are just tuning back into politics now. If Trump campaigns like he did in his New Hampshire victory speech I just don't see how these people are going to rush back into his arms. I just don't see it and we haven't even started the main campaign yet. Groups are going to flood people with reminders of what an embarrassing $hit show the first Trump administration was and Trump will be Trump but now with serious legal baggage. I've been wrong before.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 24, 2024 17:19:31 GMT -5
I prefer a shorter Presidential election contest over the two year campaign thing. Either that, or extend Presidential terms to six years.
It's frustrating how as soon as one election is over, people start campaigning for the next election in two years (after the Midterms).
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 24, 2024 17:24:39 GMT -5
Donald Trump is a scab.
What's stopping Biden from adopting populist rhetoric like that?
(and yes, I saw that the UAW has endorsed Biden. I'm talking about "style", not "substance")
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 17:26:30 GMT -5
I think it is left over from an era when travel was more difficult and telecommunications (radio) was still very new. In addition, the staggered primary system theoretically enables a lesser known candidate to emerge (think Jimmy Carter) in the sense that a candidate without a lot of money can go camp out in Iowa or New Hampshire, press the flesh, and gain notoriety via a strong finish. That is less likely in a national primary. It has also been somewhat negated by Super Tuesday which requires a candidate to have national reach i.e. money. It is worth remembering that in the 2008 democratic primary between Obama didn't secure the nomination until pretty late in the process so those late voting states did matter. If I was king of the world, I would do away with Super Tuesday because I do think it favors those candidates that can amass money. Also, the original idea behind Super Tuesday was that these states would gain more clout by combining their delegates into one contest. I think it sort of does the opposite. Finally, I actually think the longer process helps as it kind of gives voters a chance to really examine candidates under demanding circumstances over the course of an extended period. I think the entire primary season should be reduced to two weeks, held 5 months before the election. All the longer season does is increase the cost of running for office, essentially making candidates available to the highest bidder. I really think it is the opposite. If I want to run for president and there's a two week primary season, that means that I need the money to hirer a nationwide staff plus advertising in dozens of states simultaneously. To me, such a system makes it all but impossible for anyone not a billionaire or the pre-determined party favorite to even contemplate a major party run. What ever may be wrong with our system, staggering the primaries and starting in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada means it is possible for a candidate without money or name recognition to get out, meet the voters face to face, and compete. If they can then win or do well in one of these states, it helps them with fund raising and media attention in the following states. It worked for Carter, Clinton, and Obama although in the case of Clinton and Obama they already had some serious interest from with the party itself. Clinton did a lot of networking within the party as governor and Obama impressed a lot of people with his 2004 speech at the democratic convention. But, if you rerun the 2008 primary under your model, Hillary wins in a slam dunk. Interestingly, I can't really think of a GOP example because just about everyone except for Trump was from within the establishment and Trump obviously had huge name recognition going in.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jan 24, 2024 17:33:52 GMT -5
I think the entire primary season should be reduced to two weeks, held 5 months before the election. All the longer season does is increase the cost of running for office, essentially making candidates available to the highest bidder. I really think it is the opposite. If I want to run for president and there's a two week primary season, that means that I need the money to hirer a nationwide staff plus advertising in dozens of states simultaneously. To me, such a system makes it all but impossible for anyone not a billionaire or the pre-determined party favorite to even contemplate a major party run. What ever may be wrong with our system, staggering the primaries and starting in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada means it is possible for a candidate without money or name recognition to get out, meet the voters face to face, and compete. If they can then win or do well in one of these states, it helps them with fund raising and media attention in the following states. It worked for Carter, Clinton, and Obama although in the case of Clinton and Obama they already had some serious interest from with the party itself. Clinton did a lot of networking within the party as governor and Obama impressed a lot of people with his 2004 speech at the democratic convention. But, if you rerun the 2008 primary under your model, Hillary wins in a slam dunk. Interestingly, I can't really think of a GOP example because just about everyone except for Trump was from within the establishment and Trump obviously had huge name recognition going in. Candidates can advertise all they want (though I think we should begin restricting that as well, which would likely require an amendment). They can participate in pseudo debates various groups put on. But the rest of it, the primary voting, gets done between Memorial Day and June 15.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 24, 2024 17:39:05 GMT -5
As much as I'd like to agree with you across the board ..... and much of it I do.....I totally disagree with a longer process. IMHO, I think the 'longer process' is in a way directly the reason why we voters are dealing with all this BS because of the long drawn out process(es). Ok one place is caucus, one place is voting, one place allows voting and changing parties and then going back. (I dunno, this crap about going to a polling place, changing parties, voting for an inept candidate, then being able to switch back in the primary is BS) Anyway. Back to my point. Ever hear the phrase 'fish or cut bait'? Our problem now with the way the electoral system is set up is that 'cutting bait' is a self sustaining money making and power gathering process. It is NOT about finding out about what the voters really want. My take is this on what should be done: Since the SC f'd everything up with who can contribute (companies are people 🤣). Then it is time to curtail the timeframes. Like: No one can talk about running, nor collect monies, till a year before the actual election. No signing up for another term as Trump did the day after he took office. Do it an you are disqualified. I know it is a pipe dream. But it seems you work fine in Britain. Hell their politicians have less than 6 months to do what OURs do for like 4 years for god sake. They aren't even allowed to campaign .... speeches.... finding more donors..... a week before the actual elections. They get found out..... they are done..... no BS.... they are off the ticket..... EOS. www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/pre-election-period/what-pre-election-period-means-practice To your point, other countries, Canada comes to mind, have much shorter elections. The Prime Minister calls and election and it's over within a couple of months total. JIM, exactly. I am 70 and have watched campaign periods evolve from a year or so to pretty much a 'thing' that never stops. You get elected and the next day 'you' are working on the next election. And I will go so far to say that without us actually 'seeing' it..... it has become a full blown industry. I repeat a full blown industry based on politics making money for the candidates, which I guess in some ways are now CEO's of whatever party (think industry) they signed onto.Signed onto........... think about how many ..... so called caring, I am here for you, I am listening...... political butt heads.... switch back and forth (think Manchin). NOT because they didn't like the politics, rather, what opportunity is there for them to gain, power, bucks and whatever. Manchin IMHO was the poster boy for hurray for me and f U and the party. As long as I get mine I am good. This is really sad, across the board. 🤬
|
|