Divide and Conquer

[digitalbuddha]

A conspiracy theorist may view our current two party system as a long term Divide and Conquer scenario orchestrated and carried out by our rules over the past century or two. In reality it is more likely the only end result of our form of democracy. If we have more than two parties, one of the parties will easily be able to garner the majority needed to win an election. With two parties this is less likely to happen as readily. Of course in a parliamentary system everyone with enough votes gets representation, but we aren't that advanced yet.

Anyway, I look at what has happened with the Democratic primaries and the run for just the presidential nomination and I wonder if this "is" devised. I can't remember as bitter a run up to the presidency as this one. Please educate me as to other instances where it has been this nasty. I know the media has taken away our ability to choose the candidate that we actually want, but has it ever been so bad as we had to choose between the candidates that we didn't want?

[digitalbuddha]

1. bumping

because somehow this got zero views...

[bigtree]

2. my view has always been that the media does manipulate, but the public votes

gotta respect those votes

[question everything]

3. Unfortunately, too often in order to promote one's candidate, the oppnent has to be trashed

Just with the good old grade curve at school. If everyone is doing well, then something is wrong with the teacher or the grading method. In order for a student to get an A the rest of the class has to get B, C or F.

[stillcool]

4. Check this out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2852350&mesg_id=2852703

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

[Orsino]

5. Rather than divide and conquer, I'd call it framing the debate.

By labeling the Democratic and Republican parties as the endpoints of the liberal-conservative spectrum, the MSM have stolen the whole point of debate from us. We're left with two profoundly conservative parties owned by the same moneyed interests, and no one else is allowed to play. While we wrangle over which rich, Christian, pro-war, pro-business homophobe is going to win our support, the capitalists laugh. We're going to elect an African-American or a woman this year, and we will congratulate ourselves on what we think we've won.

[aquarius dawning]

6. Our model of democracy leaves something to be desired. The Connecticut Compromise kind of sucked.

A more proportional system would be better (IMO) and I don't think we really need both houses of congress. The election process for the President obviously stinks too. At the very least, a nationwide (as opposed to statewide) popular vote (sans electoral colege) would be the best but it still pretty much leads to a lack of representation and a less than perfect union. But, we're a nation of states, not men and women so we're pretty much stuck with what we got.

[anigbrowl]

7. The main reason it's different

...is because there is no incumbent in the race, and it's been a very long time since that happened. Usually the side that has already held the White House poretty much anoints their candidate at the start of the primary season, and the challenging party holds a swift and bloody contest to declare their own nominee, rather than allow the incumbents to get months of free campaign time.

I'm sorry, I don't believe the media decided the candidates and took the choices away from you, and more than I believe that this is what happened the Republican candidates. If you think 'The Meeja Run It' then you are living in a hazy world of conspiracies and psychodrama. The media don't choose the candidate - they focus on what the viewers want, and it's up to the candidates to exploit the opportunity they're given. You might feel that charisma and being telegenic play for too big a role in US politics, but the fact is that a candidate has to be able to engage people. You can't make people get interested in someone they don't want to look at.

Let's look at what was wrong with some of the vanished candidates, in no particular order (warning: sensitive types should stop reading now).

Reps:

Ron Paul: the GOP's #1 candidate in fundraising terms. Unfortunately, only appeals to conspiracy theorists.

Tom Tancredo: practically a nazi. Even his practically-nazi supporters didn't think he was presidential.

Duncan Hunter: a well-dressed Orange Country republican trying to sound like a nazi.

Fred Thompson: gave the only good speech of his campaign when he announced he was ending it. Appeared to be asleep or spaced out most of the time. Got tons of free coverage because he's somewhat famous and never said anything interesting.

Mitt Romney: a robot; the Republican equivalent of John Kerry. Campaign suddenly catches on fire after McCain leads, then burns out shortly afterwards. See him again in 2012.

Rudy Giuliani: He was mayor of New York on 9-11, you know. Managed to turn the blackest date of the 21st century into a political joke by repeating it so often.

Dems:

Joe Biden: an inflatable civics lesson. I like him, but he never developed a strong personality. Not someone most people can relate to, or vice versa.

Dennis Kucinich: Good representative, but too weird to run for office (and I have met him twice - I wasn't told that by my television). Has really terrible political antennae; only really appeals to hippies. He got lots of coverage.

Chris Dodd: a great senator. Has been a great senator for too long now to excite people. Again, failed to say anything memorable or distinctive.

Mike Gravel: campaign website designed by an illiterate. A good guy who should have run about 25 years ago.

Tom Vilsack: Couldn't raise money. May return in future. Cursed with silly name.

Bill Richardson: Disorganized campaign. Is also too fat in an age when the public knows it wants to be slimmer and fitter in order to live longer. If you doubt this, look at how much coverage Huckabee got for his dietary success.

John Edwards: constantly reminded me of a wealthy attorney trying to impress a jury. Should really have gotten a new, simpler haircut so people wouldn't keep making jokes about 2004. Didn't hear anything much different from 2004.