The american election system is rigged by impossibly high campaign costs, so that a candidate that is not created by the two parties has 0 chance to win. Maybe play kingmaker, but certainly not win.

That's what keeps the policies consistent

It's the "winner takes all" system, not the campaign costs which result in that.

The more money you has, the more likely you can press red buttonz.

 

It's the new Amercian dream.

The american election system is rigged by impossibly high campaign costs, so that a candidate that is not created by the two parties has 0 chance to win. Maybe play kingmaker, but certainly not win.

That's what keeps the policies consistent

It's the "winner takes all" system, not the campaign costs which result in that.

 

The actual election takes place after a campaign, which cannot, in general, get off the ground for third party candidates in a huge country like the US. Especially since those who could potentially fund such an expensive independent campaign are by default not interested in any real change.

I'm not disagreeing, but the order of things is important. The fact that the actual power resides in an institution where only one person is elected with the winner takes all system is the final nail in the coffin.

Edited February 11, 201213 yr by Drowsy Emperor

Well santorum seems to be replacing Gingrich as the non-mitt option, And he's leading. And no offense but if he does become the nominee then the republicans are going to be outright murdered in the general election

Edited February 22, 201213 yr by Calax

The american election system is rigged by impossibly high campaign costs, so that a candidate that is not created by the two parties has 0 chance to win. Maybe play kingmaker, but certainly not win.

That's what keeps the policies consistent

It's the "winner takes all" system, not the campaign costs which result in that.

 

Actually, you're both correct.

 

The US electoral system (first past the post) ****s over new parties and candidates who want to change things, and the fairly non-existent limits on political 'donations' ensure that, generally, only the parties and candidates favoured by the big corporations stay in or take power.

The american election system is rigged by impossibly high campaign costs, so that a candidate that is not created by the two parties has 0 chance to win. Maybe play kingmaker, but certainly not win.

That's what keeps the policies consistent

It's the "winner takes all" system, not the campaign costs which result in that.

 

Actually, you're both correct.

 

The US electoral system (first past the post) ****s over new parties and candidates who want to change things, and the fairly non-existent limits on political 'donations' ensure that, generally, only the parties and candidates favoured by the big corporations stay in or take power.

Maybe... I get the feeling it might turn out to be a bit of a "tainted well". Assuming that people actually vote how they feel (to a greater or lesser extent) I can see a political fight between the two parties going badly for the one thats taking the most Super-PAC donations. Right now the republicans are sucking up to the various corps just to get a pile of money in order to attain enough funding to duke it out with Obama... the issue is that many of their more recent initiatives have been... unpopular to say the least (SOPA and PIPA being two examples) and will probably come back and bite them in the ass when the general election comes around.

 

As much as the "reds" may hate Romney, he's really their only chance to even try breaking Obama's presidency. Santorum is winning right now because he's SO far right. But when the general election comes around and being a moderate canadidate actually matters, he's gonna get killed faster than McCain did post-Palin. Gingrich is just being turned into 10 types of crazy by his own speech and the media. And Romney, is more moderate, but he's also the one who is most awkward about everything he does (basically, he's trying to hard).

 

None of them have the Charisma that Obama's got... nor do they have the charisma that let Gee Dubya get put in as president twice.

 

The entire primary system is bullox.

The american election system is rigged by impossibly high campaign costs, so that a candidate that is not created by the two parties has 0 chance to win. Maybe play kingmaker, but certainly not win.

That's what keeps the policies consistent

It's the "winner takes all" system, not the campaign costs which result in that.

 

Actually, you're both correct.

 

The US electoral system (first past the post) ****s over new parties and candidates who want to change things, and the fairly non-existent limits on political 'donations' ensure that, generally, only the parties and candidates favoured by the big corporations stay in or take power.

It's aggravated by the campaign costs, but my experience is that the winner takes all system tends to lead to two party systems wherever it's used. Recent UK elections being the exception.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/enforcing-laws-against-illegal-pornography

 

I think I'll just leave this here. What nice candidates you have, GOP.

Santorum for President! (for the lulz)

It's going to be interesting to go from the War on Drugs, to the War on Terror, to the War on Porn.

America is truly the land of opportunity, with utter idiots like Palin & Bachmann able to make it to the political top and raving lunatics like Santorum getting away with pure lies and slander.

Apparently he didn't have a good debate last night.

The more people hear Santorum speak and learn about him, the quicker he will lose his momentum. He is basically being sustained by the fact he is the new girl at the party and everyone is tired of sleeping with Romney. In this scenario, Newt is the ugly girl that other girls hang out with to make themselves look better.

Maybe that was the idea all along, and of course a chance to scrounge together some money. Running for president can be a very lucrative business unless you are trying to win.

The more people hear Santorum speak and learn about him, the quicker he will lose his momentum. He is basically being sustained by the fact he is the new girl at the party and everyone is tired of sleeping with Romney. In this scenario, Newt is the ugly girl that other girls hang out with to make themselves look better.

Soooo... to all the hopeless guys at the party Gingrich is pulling a train in the back?

More fun from the GOP debate:

 

 

Truly disgusting what's going on there.

Communist! He watches RussiaToday!

 

How dare you expand your worldview and see things from different angles?! Heresy!

 

 

J.

Their bias is kinda straightforward. You instantly know what you are dealing with, like Fox News. To me that counts in their favor.

I assume the GOP is holding its real candidates back until 2016.

I assume the GOP is holding its real candidates back until 2016.

 

Eh, I don't think so... it's just that they're so disconnected from what the majority might want (well, the leadership is anyway) that they assume that any of their candidates has a chance to beat Obama.

 

After all, several of their party leaders have said "We want him to be a one term president" a couple of times.

The crazy thing is Obama is definitely beatable. His approval ratings are piss poor across the board. But the GOP has shown they aren't interested in solving problems and just want to fling poo around.

Well... 90% of the time solving the problem would be to do what Obama is trying to do (pump more money into the system, raise taxes, give health care to those who don't have it.... you know so we have a pool of workers), and thus the Republicans find themselves ideologically forced to NOT solve the problems and instead rely on 'you so stupid' to get them through.

Well... 90% of the time solving the problem would be to do what Obama is trying to do (pump more money into the system, raise taxes, give health care to those who don't have it.... you know so we have a pool of workers), and thus the Republicans find themselves ideologically forced to NOT solve the problems and instead rely on 'you so stupid' to get them through.

 

This.

Our deficit is pretty dang frightening, so pumping more money into the system is a pretty scary idea. I want the government to spend a lot less and still find ways to fix health care problems, lower foreclosure rates, and all the other problems we have. Considering how bloated the current federal system is, I think there is plenty of room to cut spending. The first place to start is legislator salaries. Those folks make a lot of money for not balancing the budget.