The right and the center-right.
I was thinking Republicans and Democrats. Or left and right. Or sane and insane. Not necessarily in any particular order.
It’s a two-party system. My opinion of who does it more or who is more extreme isn’t really the point… Both have extremists. There’s pandering to them going on. And it’s all very :dubious: inducing.
Not really all that complicated a phrase, is it?
Amen.
[QUOTE=mnemosyne]
I was thinking Republicans and Democrats. Or left and right. Or sane and insane. Not necessarily in any particular order.
It’s a two-party system. My opinion of who does it more or who is more extreme isn’t really the point… Both have extremists. There’s pandering to them going on. And it’s all very inducing.
Not really all that complicated a phrase, is it?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not complicated, it’s just wrong. There’s no pandering on the left like there is on the right, because there’s not enough people to pander to that would make that a smart strategy. That’s why the left panders to the center, where there’s a lot more voters to be had.
Yes. I favor a Constitutional amendment changing the presidential term to a single six year term, but former presidents could run for non-consecutive terms. They could not be re-elected, but they could run again after skipping a term by someone else.
This would put an extra two years between election years, and hopefully reduce the perpetual campaign. It would also let the President focus on the issues he was elected to deal with, instead of campaigning for a year and a half at the end of his first term. He would also be freed up to make decisions independent of the effect it would have on his re-election chances.
So what do they write about?
If I gave a damn, I could probably find some pandering to leftist extremists, but I don’t care to look for it. I was being rather general anyways - there is pandering, but not only to extremists, and done by both sides. Happy?
Sure, there’s pandering up here too, but it doesn’t go on for years and doesn’t build into the same type of circus.
In Canada? Hockey.
Here in Britain we’ve just gone from “Any time” elections to a five year term (unless the entire goverment collapses in a vote of no confidence).
I have a horrible feeling that it’s going to lead to longer and longer election cycles.
Well yeah, hockey of course. But more seriously as a person who has lived in both countries I would say that the Canadian media spends a lot more time covering international current events.
Edit - this <ironically> often enough includes the American election, since Canada has such little electoral drama of its own
And people complain we don’t export anything anymore!
That’s not what the “lame duck” period is. The lame duck period refers to the time immediately before an elected official leaves office when he or she loses a lot of power because everyone knows that if the official gives them any trouble or pushback on anything, they can simply wait for the replacement to take office. It does not refer to the time in which an official is campaigning for his or her re-election.
True…but we SHOULD have a word for the last year and a half or so (i.e., the last third) of a 4-year term, when many of a president’s decisions, priorities, and accomplishments (and, to a lesser extent, Congress’) are shaped – muted, hobbled, restricted, postponed – by being in “campaign mode”.
Okay, not “lame duck”…how about…“enfeebled goose”? “paralyzed chicken”? hmmm…
It’s not that the election cycle seems so long, it’s that the governing cycle seems so small.
Performing Emu.
“Obama would have been a great president if he hadn’t spent two years as a performing emu and four as a lame duck.”
I like it! 
In light of the recent Citizens United case, I think that a long campaign season with LOTS and LOTS of debates counteracts the imfluence of money. If we didn’t have so many debates, Rick Perry might be our frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Michele Bachman may not have imploded. Herman Cain might still be parroting 9-9-9 at debates.
The long election season has forced Mitt (a weak candidate) to cover his weakness by spending tons of money bashing Newt (who I bet has a new appreciation for the disent in Citizens united) and exposing him as an insubstantial candidate with a lot of money.
The long campaign season has given Newt a few bites at the apple and shown that his appeal is short lived and erratic.
The long campaign season has finally gotten conservative s to get over their fear of losing an election and start supporting a candidate that reflects their values (sure Santorum will lose but, who knows, Santorum might be the next Barry Goldwater, the torchbearer for the next incarnation of Ronald Reagan).
Its not just this campaign season that has benefitted from a protracted contest.
Obama and Clinton had a long protracted contest and it helped the nation decide between a fucking great candidate and a fucking awesome candidate (ultimately, we elected the one that didn’t vote to invade Iraq).
I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s not like you have to pay attention if you don’t want to. You only have to go look things up on primary days and on the vote days, and, otherwise, you can just ignore it.
And at least those times are all regular.
How about this: A new federal law requiring both parties to hold all their state primaries on the same day.
And that day in October.
Would that help any?
Perhaps it would be easier if the Electoral College were abolished, meaning this concern about the States is swept aside…a single national poll among party members.
Also, I’ve never seen the point of primaries! Can someone explain?
If it was on Halloween, I would support that.