USA Election Campaigns
 

I have a question for the US members here, do you guys get sick of your electoral campaigns? I'm amazed by how long they go for. Because it's America, we get stuff on our news here in Australia as well, and it's already been a year and a half of seeing news for this. And I hear sometimes the campaigns go for two years before the actual election. Why so long? It seems so overkill.

In Australia an election is sometimes only announced 6 months before it happens, then there could be several months of campaigning, but usually only several weeks that anyone really hears about then we vote. Because I grew up here I always thought that's how most countries would do it, but then to see this US campaigns lasting for almost 2 years blows my mind. I would get so sick of it and not even pay any attention just because it drags on for so long.

US elections last so long because it takes that long to spend so much money.
In US presidential elections the person who wins is invariably the person who spends the most campaign dollars, most of that money comes from corporations (including foreign ones) so its no measure of popularity.

Also, the bipartisan bickering and bellowing, fussing and fighting, posing and posturing, etc has become a perverted sort of entertainment. Like a reality TV show. People just lap it up for some inexplicable reason. It just keeps me away from the TV, lol

I could rant on for pages about this topic, but I will try to keep it 'succinct'. I think our political system is little more than a large scale scam and it's irrevocably broken. Presidential elections last so long to lull the sheeple into some false sense of security that they can make an "informed decision" and that their voice/vote actually matters. It doesn't, presidents are chosen by the electoral college, not voters. We need to get rid of the whole system we have and start over from scratch (which will probably not happen anytime soon, as the powers that be like all the brain dead voters caught up in petty partisan bickering whilst they do whatever the f they please). God I hate politics! Someone just wake me up in late November once it's all over.

'Muricans just *LOVE* our drama filled 'reality' TV. TBH, I may actually watch some of the debates if they dressed them up like pro wrestlers and threw in some monster trucks (which seems to be the path these "debates" are headed down, especially this election cycle).

Wheres Jerry Springer? fit right in...

Perhaps candidates should be required to play a round on the game show Jeopardy!

It would have saved us from the entire bush administration..

Which one? W. or H.W.?

Mind, I'm worried Donald (T)Rump might win.:eek:

Which one? Jeopardy? or the election? Ha...just kidding.

Worry not, no matter who wins rest assured gridlock will be the order of the day. No president will be able to do much with the parties so evenly split.

Note: That isn't a complaint. I prefer gridlock and endless debate. Our constitution was carefully designed to encourage both. I worry when one party has too much power -they tend to get all full of themselves and start muckin' up the place.

I grew up a football playing, meat eating, truck loving typical American dumb ass so naturally have a few buddies still from back in the day that are still trapped in the euphoric idea of a greater America and they all love Trump. Makes me sick, and glad I only talk to them every few months on occasion.

I have never voted for president, and never will...any one person that makes it far enough to become president of this cesspool has no doubt done some scandalous deals with the corporations destroying our planet.

Shrub, the little bush.
Having him as president was just embarrassing.

I'm not as jaded as some who have responded. Yes, an obscene amount of money is spent, and that needs to be fixed. Yes, the Electoral College is an antiquated system that has long outlived its usefulness. However, there are only three time in the nation's history that the existence of the Electoral College has caused a President to be put into office who was not the winner of the popular vote. That hardly justifies anyone from abstaining from voting on the basis of "my vote doesn't count anyway."

I don't have any patience for anyone who complains while being a bystander, whether the subject is politics or anything else.

I see Trump is now having a go at the Pope. These politics, Trump in particular are so bad that you almost can't turn away. It's like some badly written sitcom, or it's like an episode of Parks and Recreation which was designed to parody politics.

I feel like every election I have been of age to vote in has come up with a choice of being bent to the left or right to get screwed with no good option either way. I have not felt that I could vote for ANY candidate in all good conscience so far. I guess this election does have one candidate who is actually qualified to be president but I don't support his political leanings whatsoever and feel his leadership would be highly detrimental as his views go against the American way. The candidate I agree with most is not qualified whatsoever to run the country regardless if I agree with some (and just some) of his views and I feel voting for him could be detrimental if he won due to his lack of political experience. I also have the option of a hypocritical, lying traitor facing indictment who *expects* my vote because I share the same anatomy or any one of a few miscellaneous religious nuts who would be likely drag their "strong religious beliefs" into office with them and apply them where they don't belong. What kind of choice is that to have to make?! Is it *really* the right decision to vote for the sake of voting, even if you *honestly* do not feel any candidate is a good choice and any of them would in fact be detrimental? I just can't bring myself to participate in this failing train wreck of a system and feel doing so would be doing the country a greater disservice as an individual than not voting would. Perhaps if everyone who didn't have a candidate they truly supported just didn't vote, there would be a clear message sent that changes NEED to be made. Instead, SO MANY people just begrudgingly vote for whatever candidate they feel obligated to as per their parties say so (usually the one cherry picked by the media with the biggest mouth and budget).

You always have the option of doing a write in vote, if you really don't feel that one candidate is better than the others. Personally, I don't know that I've ever encountered a situation (and I'm not just talking politics) where I could say that all possible outcomes are equally bad or good.

As the old saying goes, not making a choice is a choice.

The U.S. has had an abysmally low percentage of potential voters who actually vote for so long now. I suspect that's a major part of the reason we're in the situation we're in. Apathy doesn't make for a healthy society, much less for a healthy democracy.

This opinion piece cites some statistics about voting in the U.S. It also describes, much more eloquently than I could, the reasons why voter apathy is so deleterious to our society: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...heres-why.html

Remember, money counts only to the extent that it actually influences what people do at the ballot box. By not voting, people just make the money interests more and more important.

So, is Jeb! the exception that proves the rule, or the exception that disproves the rule? He's outspent his rivals by a HUGE margin, and in polls he's either tangled up with the other establishment candidates 20 points behind the leader or in/near last place.

(Actually, even though I asked the question I'm not sure Bush's fail has anything to say about the issue. This cycle is just ... so ... dang ... weird. Being qualified is a downside!)

Here you can see the percentage of Americans who have voted in presidential elections throughout our history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_...tial_elections

It's pitiful, and it's not a new phenomenon. BTW, voter turnout for midterm elections (during which the makeup of the House and Senate are just as much at stake as during the presidential election cycle) lags 20 or more points behind even those sad figures.

Geddy Lee. :guitar: RUSH :guitar:

Poor voter turnout is a problem, but I dont think its 'the' problem.
Just look at how most elections go, half of people who vote vote for a horrible candidate, the other half vote for one which would have been just as horrible had he won. I cant believe that the half of americans not voting are just sitting there waiting for the reincarnation of Mohandas Gandhi. No, if they bothered to vote it would be for people like bush jr.
Just look at australia, over there they are required by law to vote and still most australians end up regretting their presidents just like americans, lol
The fundamental problem is people not caring enough to really go against the system and vote against the mainstream. Non-voters are just one manifestation of the problem. Voters who never look beyond republican and democrat are the other half.

I've voted in every presidential election I could, by the way. My candidates just never win ;)

There's more to elections in the US than just deciding on president. The ballot is filled with measures relating to taxes, bonds, infrastructure improvements, changes to the laws, the election of local leaders, etc.

I think it's short-sighted when people look at the presidential candidates and decide they aren't going to vote, because there are a lot of local issues that will directly affect them that are on that same ballot.

Here in California, the campaign for everything on the ballot, except the presidency, usually ranges from 2-6 months. Overall, the US presidential campaign is very long because it's national and because of the schedule of the primaries. From Feb 1 to mid June the parties in each state are voting to determine the candidate of their party they will support at the convention in August. Then the candidates are officially named for the national election that takes place in November. It is like a roving carnival during the primaries.

There is an inflated importance attached to the first few states that hold their primaries like Iowa and New Hampshire because they can determine the front-runner. Candidates who don't perform well in the primaries in the early states will have a hard time attracting donors to keep their campaign going in upcoming primaries in other states. Usually by mid-March the candidate for each party has been settled. This year, because there are so many candidates, and so much more money flowing from political action committees who can hide their donors, it's going to feel like a longer slog.

I've long wondered why there are quite so many positions filled by elections rather than just hiring qualified people the normal way. I can almost understand why school district officials are elected rather than hired, almost, but can anyone tell me why my local coroner is an elected official?
When I think election campaign a part of my brain always thinks corruption, and just what reason would there be for rich people to buy a corrupt coroner!
Its just creepy :p

Whats next? Electing people to the position of medical doctor?

I'm voting for Bernie. I'm glad he had extra time to build his funds and campaign against Hillary and the rest of the establishment.

I have different political views than you, but I want to say I wish more people gave it the respectful thought that you do, as well being open to discussion. I try and listen to political radio talk and can't stomach the divisive hate so many people express against all who feel differently.
We can't have freedom if we can't respect that we're not same

What bothers me more than the extraordinary length of campaigns is their NASTY tone. Over the years I've seen every imaginable type of mudslinging, and it does nothing for me except make me want to NOT vote for that candidate! I really wish every candidate's campaign could be run in a civil manner, paying attention to the ISSUES that are important to us voters, and just skip the nasty jabs at their opponents. Especially their SAME PARTY opponents!

And, for what it's worth, I'm happily supporting Clinton--not because *SHE* is a woman, but because *I* am.

So you want the campaigns to be even more dishonest? lol
When they mudsling and engage in obvious dirty tricks I'm appreciative! I can instantly rule them out as someone I'd vote for. I'd never do that stuff and I'd like a president better than myself. Its the skillful liars that smile and kiss babies for the cameras that make voting difficult, takes more research to sort them out.

I'm sort of puzzled why so many are going to vote for clinton just for her gender. The last female presidential candidate (Cynthia McKinney) didnt get that, I think she got 0.1% of the vote and that was just 8 years ago.

I think that very, very few people will vote for a woman just because she's a woman, but many people won't vote for a woman because she's a woman. I do think that a number of people, having decided that either of two or more candidates being largely acceptable to them, will vote for the one who happens to be a woman, for a number of reasons, one being that it's time certain barriers are broken.

Seven years ago, I was torn between voting for Obama or Hillary. I like(d) them both, and I really want(ed) both the color and the gender barrier to the Presidency to be broken during my lifetime. It was only when Bill Clinton started playing the race card in a particularly nasty way that I decided to vote for Obama.

There's never been a Republican woman running for national office for whom I would have voted. However, I may well have voted for Colin Powell, if he had run back in the day before the Bush administration made him their patsy wrt Iraq.

This bears repeating, IMO. I also think that most people don't realize how much local politics ends up determining national politics.

I'm not one of them! As noted earlier, I'm not voting for Clinton BECAUSE SHE is a woman, but because *I* am. Well, that plus the fact that she's the best qualified candidate, from any party, and the most electable Democrat. I have nothing against Sanders, really, except that I see him as unelectable because he's way too far over on the left. So if it comes down to him against any Republican candidate, I believe the Republican will win.

Who?! :confused: (I think THAT might explain why she didn't get the "voting for her just because she's a woman" vote, you know?)

Exactly.

Unfortunately, this is true, too.

I guess we'll see, right?

I supported Clinton from start to finish, and was highly offended by people I refer to as bandwagon jumpers who rallied behind Obama for the sole reason that "he'll be our first BLACK president!" Never mind his qualifications...or lack thereof...just vote for him because he's partially black. :rolleyes: (I'm not saying EVERYONE did this.) I'd be just as offended if people jumped on the Clinton bandwagon if she were as unqualified as Obama, but "she'll be our first FEMALE president!" :rolleyes: Personally, *I* vote for the candidate I believe to be best qualified for the job; other stuff, like their gender or race, take a back seat to their qualifications.

Same here. I really liked Powell, and could've easily voted for him. But Sarah Palin? Not in a million years. Like I said, for me it's not about voting for a woman BECAUSE she's a woman, but because she has the qualifications for the job...and Palin simply doesn't, to say nothing of the fact that she's a quitter, and I don't like quitters.

Thank you for understanding:). I don't care if anyone agrees with me, but I since we're all stating opinions here, I'm stating mine;) just like everybody else.

I am not ill informed, ignorant or too lazy to vote. I have a unique perspective on the political system. I believe very, very few (if any) politicians (regardless of party or leanings) serve their entire term(s) making their political decisions based on what's ACTUALLY best for the majority of the public without a hint of self serving abuse of power that favors themselves or their "cronies". Anyone who believes otherwise is perhaps a tad naive. Whether or not someone is "ok" with that kind of behavior is their opinion, but I know I'm not.

I guess one could say I contentiously object to participating in our political system as-is. Politicians are self serving, voters are self serving, corruption proliferates under this system and very few people are actually trying to look at what is good for the whole of the country (or state or city), not just themselves or their inner circle (no matter how they'd like to spin it to seem like what will serve them best will serve the majority best, even when it doesn't). As the own saying goes, the fish rots from the head.

So, what are you doing to change the situation? (Because I think that abstaining isn't going to change things one iota.)

Interesting choice of words. :) I've never heard anyone say they're contentious about objecting to our political system. I've heard of conscientious objectors, but not contentious ones. :confused:

Must have been autocorrect!

This is a valid question. I have not figured that out yet, though I agree to an extent that one person not voting isn't really going to have any noticeable impact on the political system. Kind of like how one individual being a vegan isn't going to have any noticeable impact on the factory farming industry. Why do it if it makes no noticeable impact since you're only one individual saying "this is wrong and I will not participate" right? I'm actually not even objectionable to voting should a decent candidate come forward, but I will not be voting for someone I don't support and do not feel would be good for my country just because society tells me I need to pick one or else be viewed as a lesser person for not.

My ears are always open to groups focused on PEACEFULLY changing the system, especially a group looking to abolish partisan politics (which I truly feel is the root of the majority of our problems). I would even be willing to step outside my comfort zone and interact with other people face to face, which seldom few things in life could ever entice me to do voluntarily. I have yet to find a group though that isn't just aimed towards "training" for some kind of armed revolution/apocalyptic scenario. Now I will probably be asked why I don't start a group myself. Who would join? Not in fantasy "if you can dream it you can achieve it" land, but in the real world. Why would anyone listen to me? I'm an unattractive societal reject who has unpopular views. I would have about as much luck in finding people willing to even listen with an open mind, much less start a group with me, as "the end is near" people holding signs on the corner. I'm not delusional about how people view me, but I still don't feel I should actively contribute to the problem, even if I haven't *yet* figured out what kind of positive impact I can make towards a solution.

It is beyond question that money can have a very negative effect in politics, but we should remember ...

Jeb! had the largest super PAC in history. He sometimes spent more than his opponents combined. And last week Jeb! dropped out because he barely cracked single digits at the polls.

Y'know what bugs me?

The only way to avoid being accused of supporting someone 'just because' of their identity is to vote for a white male. Non white males even have to downplay their identity to be taken seriously.

Made me think of David Foster Wallace's quote on voting:


If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullsh*t yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote.

I do not appreciate the implication I use drugs because I don't vote. I have not directly attacked anyone on this board with a low blow shot like that during this discussion.

That was not in any way implicating you do drugs, nor was it directed as an attack at you. It is a quote from one of the greater writers we've had in the past few decades that was relative to Beautiful Joe's comment.

I'm sorry that you were only able to take away that one phrase from the quote, which was a generalization.