Non-Americans: the US Presidential election really is a train wreck, isn't it?

[Northern_Piper]

@Lord_Feldon

There aren’t as many as some people want, and a couple of them were scheduled for times that would supposedly minimize the number of viewers. (Two were on Saturday nights, one right before Christmas.)

[QUOTE=Expano Mapcase]
The debate schedule is hilariously transparent, though. The only positive thing to say about it is that it’s nice to see that the Democrats can do something, anything, that is an actual dirty trick.
[/QUOTE]

And why is that a dirty trick?

[John_Mace]

@Northern_Piper

help me here: what’s the issue with the timing of the Dem debates?

@Lord_Feldon

There aren’t as many as some people want, and a couple of them were scheduled for times that would supposedly minimize the number of viewers. (Two were on Saturday nights, one right before Christmas.)

I’m not sure why this would be such a noticeable shenanigan for a foreigner, though. It’s more major televised debates than pretty much any other democracy tends to have in its party leadership selection process, and it’s arcane inside baseball that most Americans won’t even care about.

Conventional wisdom is that the front runner wants fewer debates, and the challengers want more. It would seem that the DNC* set things up to favor Hillary, who was the front runner for a long time (if she still isn’t now). And the DNC chair, Wasserman–Schultz is an unabashed HRC supporter, which doesn’t help.

*Democratic National Committee.

[Rick_Kitchen]

There is the leader of an Australian political party here in California. The Australian Sex Party. How popular are they?

[penultima_thule]

@Rick_Kitchen

How popular are they?

Nationally, 1.37% of Senate first preferences at the 2013 Federal Election.

Other elements of what could form the bedroom coalition:
Stable Population Party 0.37%
Rise Up Australia Party 0.09%
Family First 1.11%

The Pirate Party got 0.31%

[coremelt]

@Quartz

On both sides.

Sure we hear here more about Trump, but the Democrat side is just as bad, isn’t it?

No way. Clinton has some issues about her but she is far, far far less embarrassing than Trump.

And the Australian Sex Party has surprisingly good policy ideas. They are mainly anti censorship, anti government interfering in private lives in general.
http://www.sexparty.org.au/policies

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Is Trump really any worse than Berlusconi (bearing in mind that the latter actually won and managed to get reelected a few times in a country where the average length of a government is like three and a half minutes)?

[orcenio]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Is Trump really any worse than Berlusconi (bearing in mind that the latter actually won and managed to get reelected a few times in a country where the average length of a government is like three and a half minutes)?

Berlusconi, mind you, is a convicted criminal barred from holding further office. Trump is a buffoon, but he hasn’t been convicted of any crimes (as of yet).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

And Trump, for all his offensive comments, hasn’t yet indulged in any paeans to Hitler and/or Mussolini.

[orcenio]

However I do see Trump matching (or topping) Silvio’s
[ul]
[li]telling people to invest in Italy cuz (among other things) “…we have beautiful secretaries… superb girls.”[/li][li]…or calling Angela Merkel an “unfuckable lard ass”[/li][/ul]
But no bunga-bunga parties (Trump isn’t as flashy with his infidelity), nor do I expect him to be arrested/convicted over tax fraud (I’m sure he pays smart people good money to game the system officially).

[John_Mace]

@orcenio

Berlusconi, mind you, is a convicted criminal barred from holding further office. Trump is a buffoon, but he hasn’t been convicted of any crimes (as of yet).

But was he a convicted criminal BEFORE he was elected? If not, then the comparison isn’t really fair.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

No. And Berlusconi controlled about half of all non-state-owned media before his election, which is an advantage Trump doesn’t have.

[Alley_Dweller]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No. And Berlusconi controlled about half of all non-state-owned media before his election, which is an advantage Trump doesn’t have.

It would seem that Trump controls at least half the media without the overhead of any management responsibilities.

Remember early on when Fox News Channel tried to diss him? He sent them running with their tails between their legs. They had previously thought that they were in charge of the Republican electorate.

[SanVito]

@DinoR

It’s not two years though. Candidates typically declare in the summer the year before the election is held and the November it’s all over but the transition. Call it less than 18 months from first declarations to the general election. Most Americans really don’t start paying attention till well after that point. It’s really freaking long but we don’t need to overstate the case.

You guys need to get some perspective. Campaigning for UK general elections lasts 38 days!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Some might say the relative disparity in campaigning time reflects the relative importance of the two countries on the world stage.

[coremelt]

@Alley_Dweller

It would seem that Trump controls at least half the media without the overhead of any management responsibilities.

Trump is incredibly savvy at controlling the relentless media cycle by dominating the talking points and denying his opponents any air time. He’s a text book example of “the candidate you deserve, not the one you need” to steal a line from Batman

Whether or not he can turn that into a victory remains to be seen but I think he has forever changed US politics and probably not for the best.

[penultima_thule]

The OP overstates the case;

A trainwreck election would be something like NSW in 2011 when Labor was so on the nose their candidates (even the bambiesque who stood on the burning deck after the most egregiously reprehensible scarpered) couldn’t trust their own parents to vote for them. Labor who’d won 52 seats in 2009 held onto only 20 with plenty of blue-ribbon seats going down with 20% plus swings.

If you want the definitive trainwreck election then I’d nominate the 1993 Canadian federal election.

I don’t think either of those scenarios are on in the general, notwithstanding the chatter from the professional political cadre.

Were the Republicans to make a clear determination of their candidate, a candidate with a sellable platform/profile, then unite behind them with full resources deployed then it might well not go pear-shaped at all (for the Republican Party anyway).

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@penultima_thule

A trainwreck election would be something like NSW in 2011 when Labor was so **on the nose **their candidates (even the bambiesque who stood on the burning deck after the most egregiously reprehensible scarpered) couldn’t trust their own parents to vote for them.

Interesting usage. The American meaning of “on the nose” is “perfectly correct.” Your usage implies something horribly bad, smelly, stinking. Is this Australian slang or also used elsewhere?

Bambiesque is harder still. The movie Bambi faced a fire, but his behavior is equivocal for this usage:

Bambi is awakened shortly afterward by the smell of smoke, and is warned of a wildfire by his father. The two flee to safety, although Bambi is separated from Faline in the turmoil and searches for her along the way. He soon finds her cornered by vicious hunting dogs, which he manages to ward off. Bambi, his father, Faline, and the forest animals manage to reach shelter on a riverbank.