After the Iowa Caucuses the messenger of the Lord, Huckabee, bowed gracefully out of the 2016 election….and then we were down to 11 candidates ……..almost enough as to not have to settle for the “Kiddie Table” debate……
Sad news…..we are down to 10 on the GOP side…….
New Hampshire Republicans will have one less presidential candidate to consider: Rand Paul is dropping out of the race, reports CNN. The move comes after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, leaving the libertarian-leaning senator to focus instead on keeping his seat in Kentucky, where he faces a re-election challenge, reports Politico. “It’s been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House,” Paul said in a statement cited by ABC News. “Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of liberty.” Read it in full here.
At least Paul was talking about our disastrous foreign policies……that conversation will now be silent during the campaigns…..who will be the voice of reason in the GOP now?
Who will be the next to drop from our memory?
How about we ALL boycott the national elections next year? We already know there won’t be any worthy candidates; why should we vote at all, if there is no choice?
I’d say we could do without a government until it all gets sorted out. They’re not doing much other than lining their own pockets, anyway….
Hmph.
gigoid, the dubious
Ever noticed that candidates are more concerned with their future then the country….that should be very telling….that is if we would just open ears and eyes….chuq
After a year of endless posturing in The Walking Circle, the Starting Gate is open…And THEY’RE OFF & RUNNING!!!!
A few thoughts:
1) Mike Huckabee got slightly more votes than supposed early pre-game favourites Boutros Boutros-Christie and previous winner, Mr Frothy Fecal Matter. Are they still in? I’m playing catch-up, here now that it’s actually 2016. How did Rick Perry & Scott walker do? I can’t find anything on those star candidates.
2) Poor Martin O’Malley only got 8 votes. I wonder how much he spent to get those 8 votes. Probably a few million. There were actually more camera crews at his pathetic concession speech than votes for him. And he did better than all but two of the 2015-16 Democratic hopefuls did. He actually made it to the Starting Gate!
3) Where are the Democrats? Huckabee got more votes than ALL DEMOCRATS COMBINED! In fact, only Jim Gilmore (Who the fuck is that?) got fewer votes than all the Democrats combined. Sure, you’d expect Republicans to vastly outnumber Democrats in the Iowa Cock-us, but “landslide” doesn’t even begin to describe it…186,784 Republicans vs 1,406 Democrats…That’s almost 150 to 1…and that was within the context of a Democratic photo-finish.
There were so few Democratic voters, it’s almost embarrassing to award them delegates. Shit, what was their dollar-per-vote ratio? I mean, fuck! The last time I ran for my MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (and finished 2nd last), I got more votes than ALL DEMOCRATS COMBINED got in the entire fucking state of IOWA! And my campaign budget was $100 bucks!
4) Was a year of pre-game hype, countless thousands of hours of TV time and God knows how many millions of dollars spent…was this worth it? Less than 200,000 votes and about less than 1% of the delegates need for victory.
They are both out of the race…they quite before the second to last debate…..Iowa is so conservative that even a radical fundamentalist looks like a liberal…..
The whole Iowa Cock-us was a stupid waste of time & money. After almost a year of ignoring it, I look up to see that almost half the 2015 Candidates dropped out even before entering the Starting Gate. This includes several “star” Candidates expected to do well. The only guy as relevant as he was the last I looked is Trump. Going by Iowa, not even future winner, President Clinton, hasn’t been diminished. She’s tied with a decrepit old socialist for fucks sakes!
And of those who made it into the Starting Gate, 3 have already dropped out. Poor Martin O’Malley (who played the mayor in HBO’s The Wire) got hung up in a wire and strangled himself to death right inside the Starting Gate! Eight fucking votes! Eight fucking votes! I got more than 10X that many votes in my worst ever bid for town council…votes from relatives excluded! And all I did that year was put my name on the ballot. Wow, that’s some kinda humiliation!
Clearly, I made the right choice in my “No 2016 until 2016” pledge. For all the speculation counted for, every second of attention I’d have spent on it would have been better spent singing peace songs to ISIS members.
The only people that benefit from the Iowa Caucus…is the media…..after that no one cares…..a caucus is not democratic by any stretch of the imagination…..still think we should have a national primary day and be done with it….chuq
It’s not entirely true that only the media benefits from the Iowa Cock-us. Iowanians (???)….they REALLY benefit from the Iowa Cock-us. Just think of all the money spent in their state. It must be in the hundreds of millions. Think of the hotel industry, the catering industry, the restaurants and the stupid fairs & straw polling industries. All those Candidates with their volunteers and entourages. All those reporters chasing Candidates around Mexican fast food joints. Even though it’s only once every 4 years, it HAS to be the biggest economic driver in Iowa outside of corn.
Not only that, it ensures Iowa’s narrow demographic range (white evangelicals) and economic issues (corn porn) play major roles in selecting a President. What other state gets their “issue cock” sucked so much? Nobody! Anybody who even fantasizes about running for President one day votes for farm subsidies without batting an eye.
As for a single National Primary, there’s some decent logic to it. But I don’t like it because:
1) Covering the entire nation simultaneously would be FAR more difficult & FAR more expensive than concentrating on little Iowa & New Hampshire. Just compare the cost of a 30 second TV spot in Cedar Rapids to one in NY or LA. Or all the plane tickets. Or all the campaign HQ rentals. This would require MUCH larger campaigns that would have to run full-throttle for even longer than it takes now. And it will be entirely front-loaded.
No “Cinderella” Candidate will ever win a surprise Primary victory, “catch fire”, and get a donation/attention bounce from it. Every candidate would have to be able to afford ALL 50 Primary Campaigns BEFORE even announcing their run. As such, the ONLY candidates you’d ever see would be establishment candidates with several Sugar Daddies behind them. This actually makes the current problems worse. (cost, duration, lack of candidate variety, influence of big donors)
2) Who wants to spend 1,2, or 3 years living like an Iowanian (?) in a Presidential election year? Can you imagine seeing a campaign ad every time you turn on the TV, or bumping into a pack of idiots with TV cameras every time you get coffee & donuts, or go grocery shopping? Imagine getting accosted every time you’re in public by some asshole asking for money, or wanting to fondle your kids.
3) It would ruin the only fun part of the entire political process, the travelling roadshow and the scoring of points (aka delegates). I complain about the clowns a lot. But there is a quaint, romantic, appeal of the circus travelling from town to town. I must admit that, unfortunately, this roadshow is the only way to get Americans to pay attention to the most important business of the nation.
Now, despite all the above, I think the Primary system ABSOLUTELY needs MAJOR restructuring. Unfortunately, the most effective reform likely to get passed would be to (after Iowa & Hampshire because NOBODY would dare touch a tradition in America!)… hold 5-6 regional “Super Tuesdays”. All states in a given region would hold their Primary on the same day. It would speed things up, keep those travel costs from spiralling, make ALL states/regions matter more equally, and still allow candidates with shallower pockets a chance to enter the Starting Gate.
But even my modest proposal is a serious long-shot. Way too much vested interest in keeping things like they are.
You are right about the money for the incidentals…..but without the media all that would be for naught…..
I like the super primary idea…..but no ads until the 1st of January until the primaries…..
But I agree with you the primary season is just too entertaining……so much humor and so much kabuki theater……I would be lost without the crap to write….LOL
I saw this and thought you might like it…..
Source: A bit MEH | The Economist
Read the story & liked it. Thanks.
I believe it was Canadian media guru, Marshall McLuhan, who said “Advertising is in the business of advertising advertising”. So, within that context….of course advertising works!!! It has succeeded in convincing everyone it is vitally important to society. It’s everywhere…on TV, on the boards at hockey arenas, and in politics.
Now, whether specific ad campaigns work at making people buy a specific product…Despite a whole lot of shrinks and data-mining Rain Men getting paid big bucks to help psychologically manipulate people, results have been unclear & random at best. They’re much more effective in the macro. For example, getting people to buy more shit habitually, rather than buy a specific piece shit. (ie a 2016 Santorum)
As to the article’s contention:
1) Like all things involving money & psychology, (ie consumer spending) after a certain threshold, the “positive” effects drop off on a per-dollar basis. I think it’s called “diminishing return”. Or, as how I like to think of it, what adults sound like in Peanuts cartoons…wah, waaah, waaahhh.
2) Gains are short lived. That’s because the people who fall for the “new, hip, thing” getting hyped are constantly falling every “new, hip, thing” getting hyped. There’s a long, long, line of tricksters out there waiting their turn to pitch their scam to the rubes. The second they’re done, they get right back in line to do it again. Mad Men refer to this as “ad clutter”. There are so many ads, they get in each other’s way and dramatically decrease effectiveness.
3) Political ground games are more effective. Hardly surprising to me. Everybody blathers about #this & #that and pretend that they’re changing the world because they re-tweeted something. What matters is not what people think, but ACTUALLY DELIVERING RESULTS. In this case, getting actual people to actually vote. Between all the scientific skull-fuckery and hi-tech bullshit, people have completely forgot the part that actually matters, ie getting your potential voters in a voting booth.
Propaganda…..the way advertising works…..ask Goebbels….LOL Campaigns are nothing more than an advert scheme to sell a candidate….