Palin for Prez in 2012 likely suicide for GOP

[CFLarsen]

When those railing against the two dominant parties, wanting more parties, are in the minority, then that minority thinks it should decide what happens to the majority.

It is a good thing that a party can elect a new leader, if the old one isn't the best anymore. People shouldn't vote for the right person to fix things, but for the politics they think will benefit society the most.

If a coalition of several parties fall apart, then the people will vote for a new government (or, rather, a new parliament). All European democracies have a maximum timeframe between two elections, but sometimes, it is good to ask the people who they want to govern them earlier than that. If only to reflect a new situation. Lots of things can happen in a short time.

Just imagine: Instead of 8 years with Bush, there could have been considerably less.

Damned good argument.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If so, I apologise. Does the leader of a political party automatically become the parliamentary leader?

Yes. The point you seem to be missing is that the leader of a political party is not elected (exclusively) by MPs but (also) by party members.

The brackets are because the system varies not just from country to country, but also from party to party.

It is true that if a large majority of a party's MPs flat out refused to follow their leader, then that leader would be sunk.

It is difficult to translate between these two traditions of democracy. See, for example, my thread about "Do Moderate Republican Senators Now Rule The World?" If American democracy was a tiny bit more like British democracy, then that is exactly who'd be running the world. But it isn't so they don't.

 

[lomiller]

Bullshwa, Huckabee was smarter and more likeable as fundies go

Smarter then Palin does not equal smart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfU59KSvbvs

 

[hgc]

When those railing against the two dominant parties, wanting more parties, are in the minority, then that minority thinks it should decide what happens to the majority.

It is a good thing that a party can elect a new leader, if the old one isn't the best anymore. People shouldn't vote for the right person to fix things, but for the politics they think will benefit society the most.

If a coalition of several parties fall apart, then the people will vote for a new government (or, rather, a new parliament). All European democracies have a maximum timeframe between two elections, but sometimes, it is good to ask the people who they want to govern them earlier than that. If only to reflect a new situation. Lots of things can happen in a short time.

Just imagine: Instead of 8 years with Bush, there could have been considerably less.

Damned good argument.

"Wanting more parties" isn't nearly as concrete a desire as wanting various policies to be in effect. You say "elect more parties," as if someone is going to vote for a 3rd party just because it's not one of the other two. Ridiculous.

First problem: Unless a 3rd, 4th or nth party represents something that people want, there's no reason to think that people will vote for it in great numbers. Look at the Libertarian Party in the US. They truly represent an alternative to the major 2 parties, but they also appeal to a tiny constituency of nutburgers who want to revert to pre-civilized human existence.

Second problem: The US already has a coalition system. The major coaliations are the Democratic and Republican parties. Due to the system of government that we have here (non-parliamentary), it only works if the coalitions are formed pre-election and packaged under the labels of the parties.

Thus you have the issue of the stress in the Republican coalition, where the major constituent components (theocrat, corporatist and neo-con) haven't found a successful formula for the last two election cycles (06/08) due to the failure of their governance of the last eight years. So there's lots of talk from each of them of jettisoning the others in order to recapture their "true" meaning. But they still need each other. Or they need to change something significantly so as to peel off some piece of the Democratic coalition in order to make up the difference.

 

[varwoche]

Since the election threads have been locked down (for no good reason) I'm posting this bit of trivia here about America's favorite, down home, Jane Sixpak nutbag :

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign spent more than $165,000 over the course of nine weeks on a trio of stylists for Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

link

 

[gtc]

Oh, I mistook the last comment. Mea Culpa. I've been up for about 20 hours, so I'll blame that.

Apology accepted. And I stand corrected about British politics.

Yes. The point you seem to be missing is that the leader of a political party is not elected (exclusively) by MPs but (also) by party members.

I think only one or two very minor parties do it that way in Australia; it may be due to our Federal system. The leader of the political party is not a particularly important role compared to the parliamentary leaders at State and Federal level.

It is true that if a large majority of a party's MPs flat out refused to follow their leader, then that leader would be sunk.

I guess that musn't happen often enough to be considered a practical problem.

It is difficult to translate between these two traditions of democracy.

That is the point I was trying to make to CFL before we got onto the topic of British politics.

 

[Jimbo07]

PALIN/PLUMBER '12!

You saw it here, second.

Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Ohio voter who... became a hero of John McCain's presidential bid, said Tuesday he felt "appalled" at some of his interactions with the Arizona senator, and soon felt the need to ditch his campaign.

and

Despite his disappointment with McCain though, Wurzelbacher praised Palin as "absolutely the real deal."

Anyone see where this is going?

 

[Almo]

There are far more voters who want fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and less intrusive government than who want the government trying to impose some moral code on the nation, as well as the truly ridiculous crap like teaching creationism in science classes.

I truly hope you are right.

I'm with Tricky here.

 

[jberryhill]

I don't want the death of the GOP, I want them to ditch the Christian right element of it.

Well put.

I was/am a strong supporter of Barack Obama, but I would like to have a choice among candidates with reasoned differences, and not a circus.

Surely by 2012, the Republicans can come up with a ticket that is not based on the bizarre antics of this clown Palin.

 

[KellyG]

Romney's magic underpants

Surely by 2012, the Republicans can come up with a ticket that is not based on the bizarre antics of this clown Palin.

In all seriousness I agree with you, but I find it unlikely, since the party has swung so far to the right. The top candidates now are Jindall, Palin, Paul, and Romney. The thought of any of these people running the country scares me!

 

[Allen773]

I predict that Charlie Crist will get the GOP nomination in 2012.

Is this based on anything? No, which makes it fit in with the other predictions.

 

[Praktik]

In other news, Palin to appear on American Chopper - is there no limit to how high this rising star will reach??

 

[Upchurch]

In other news, Palin to appear on American Chopper - is there no limit to how high this rising star will reach??

Is she -gasp- a celebrity now?

 

[ProbeX]

I ... The top candidates now are Jindall, Palin, Paul, and Romney. The thought of any of these people running the country scares me!

Okay I'll just pick on one of them: Jindall. Just a reminder ... I can't imagine the justification for trying to pit this (See first 15 seconds) ...



... against this (Starting at 2:50 min.s):



You get about ten seconds into each vid and notice Jindall's profound lack of charisma.

The GOP better start demonstrating better judgment in who they rally behind. Sure, charisma isn't substantial in and of itself in politics, but if it's missing from the equation - especially when the opponent is mega-charismatic - it could spell big problems imo.

Sarah Palin is a farce but I think her charisma was partially responsible for her getting dangerously close to the Oval. And on some level I'd love to see her running again for purely sadistic reasons.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Is she -gasp- a celebrity now?

She's the world's 947th biggest celebrity.

 

[applecorped]

They are called "political junkies" for a reason. Addiction is a powerful thing.

Oh, it's you again.

 

[CapelDodger]

PALIN/PLUMBER '12!

You saw it here, second.



Anyone see where this is going?

Down the toilet? Round the U-bend?

 

[Polaris]

If she wins, I'll have to rethink that Mayan doomsday prophecy thing.

Some people have horrifically low standards for charisma.
Dear god...she came across, to myself and a few others I know, as being a shrill harpy. I didn't think she had any presence at all, and I found her to be highly grating.

I've heard the term used to describe Al Gore. So yeah, "horrifically low" is accurate.

 

[Whiplash]

Looking into that story, I don't see the big deal here. American Chopper was in Alaska, researching to build the ultimate tribute bike to Alaska. They met the Governor and she was apparently excited about the process (and is clearly proud of her state and wants the bike to reflect it well). And they decided to put her in the show for a bit? This seems innocent enough to me.