Everyone answer this question:

[rpgamerd00d]

You are in charge of choosing a candidate to run for an election.

Candidate A polls 10-15% higher than Candidate B.
Candidate A polls equally to Candidate B against The Opponent.
Candidate A has 10 times as much money as Candidate B.
Candidate A has 10 times as much experience as Candidate B.
Both Candidates are good people, worthy of running.

Which candidate do you choose to run against The Opponent?

Note: Be unemotional, simply pick the superior candidate.
Note: There currently are no publicly funded national elections.









p.s. I hope you can figure out what I am referring to here...

[mattclearing]

1. I can't believe this argument is still happening.

Let it die already.

[Fleshdancer]

2. the one that wins the primary

The choice belongs to the people and isn't mine to make.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Since when?

[Fleshdancer]

22. since people started voting in primaries

In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the whole point of a primary race. For people to choose which candidate they want to see run against the opposition party's choice. Seems like a pretty straight forward concept to me.

[bryant69]

3. First of al screw both candidate A and Candidate B

I want a candidate who will stand up for the American people!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Warpy]

7. Yeah, let's hear some of their IDEAS

because I don't give a fuck how much money they've sleazed out of corporations or how much name recognition they've got. I want to know how much HOPE they're going to give a battered public.

[Richard Steele]

5. I don't 'pick' anyone, the PEOPLE do. It's called a "primary election".

At least that's what they call it in a democracy.

And I hope YOU can figure out what I am referring to here.

[MadHound]

6. The thing is friend, the people in Ohio aren't being allowed to answer

Instead, it is a top down decision made by the so called leadership of the party. They are denying we, the people, the chance to answer that question in the primaries. Isn't that what primaries are for? If we're going to have these sorts of top down decisions, why bother with primaries? What, don't you believe in giving the people a choice? Apparently our so called leaders don't.

That's the root of the anger here friend, that we are being dictated to, that we're not being allowed to answer your question. That's wrong, especially in a party that has titled itself "Democratic"

[rpgamerd00d]

9. Sorry, you're wrong. Its the job of leadership to support the best

candidate. They have to pick. They have to back someone. They can't back two people.

They didn't prevent B from running, they simply chose A. B could still run and let a primary decide. That has no effect on the decision of leadership to back A.

I think everyone is completely failing to comprehend this point.

[MadHound]

15. Backing is one thing

Going behind a candidate's back and calling his supporters in order to prevent him from getting cash is an entirely different thing.

Sure, they can go out on the stump circuit for the guy, they can write opinion pieces, LTTEs, editorials, go on camera, etc. etc. and it's all good.

But using their influence and throwing their weight around to cut off the money flow, to a fellow Democrat, that's just fucking lowdown BS that demeans the party as a whole. And it is a dirty trick that shouldn't be used against a fellow Democrat. That is indeed taking the decision away from the people friend, for you know as well as I do that without money, you don't have a campaign. So don't give me this innocent crap about how the "leadership" didn't prevent Hackett from running. The cut his campaign off at the legs when they cut off his money, and rather than running, all Hackett could do is fall.

[rpgamerd00d]

16. Again, not true.

Every person that was funding Hackett could choose to continue or choose to stop. If they choose to fund Brown instead, regardless of who prompted them, then Hackett is SOL. Why are you blaming the Dem leaders for decisions the funders made to stop funding Hackett? Again, the Dem Leaders chose a candidate to back, and are actively trying to get as much support for that candidate as they can. If someone is funding B, they are obligated to try to get that person to instead fund A, because they back A. It is the decision of that funder to swtich candidates.

Everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing. I see no issue here other than someone's sweetheart got jobbed.

[MadHound]

23. Are you honestly that naive about politics?

Do you really think that Reid and the others just called in to Hackett's financial backers and offered them a non-binding choice? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, wake up and smell the smoky back room! Deals were done, promises made, backs were scratched, favors were called in. This is how the Democratic party "leadership" works, and if you don't know this by now, if you can't see the historical evidence in front of your nose, then you are wandering blind in the political wilderness and are in desperate need of some help.

Yeah, somebody got jobbed here alright, the people of Ohio, who instead of being allowed to vote for who THEY wanted instead had that choice made for them. Not very democratic, if you ask me.

[rpgamerd00d]

26. That's not the point. Its not the "how", its the "what".

You are upset about the "how" of this. (back room deals, etc.).

But the "what" of this still stands. They backed the candidate with more money and a better chance.
Period.

Nothing more goes into it. If some billionaire came up and funded Hackett, he'd still be in.
But he realized that without such a benefactor, he was out. Thats how it works. You get backing, or you don't run.

This all changes once Public Funding of Elections comes to be. That is what we need to focus on.
Because as Democrats, Public Funding always benefits the so-called "little guy", which almost always is a Democrat. (Yes, there are a few Reps this would benefit, too, but its minor.)

[MadHound]

28. And the reason that Brown winds up with more money is twofold

First, because he is sitting on his leftover warchest from his house run, something that a newcomer like Hackett doesn't have.

Second, because the Democratic "leadership" goes out and cuts Hackett off at the legs by doing a multitude of deals with Hackett backers.

Hackett never had the chance to bring in the money, because the Democratic "leadership" denied him the chance to raise money! Get it?

And actually, in the race against DeWine, Hackett was doing better than Brown was. The only poll that showed Hackett behind anybody was done by Brown's pet pollster, Diane Feldman. HMMMM!

The Democratic party wants new blood, new candidates, at least that is what they say. But time and again they would rather cut somebody off at the knees rather than having a new voice speaking truth to power, especially their power. And the party wonders why people are leaving them in droves:eyes:

I agree with you about public funding, we need it desperately. Just don't expect the corporate controlled Democrats to back this idea. They're too addicted to all of that corporate lucre.

[Skidmore]

8. The one with the best message.

Perhaps we should quit considering money and start talking to the people instead of trying to buy them.

How is that for a novel idea?

[rpgamerd00d]

11. How about running campaigns in the real world where money means

winning and no money means losing no matter what your philosophy is?

How is that for a novel idea?

[Skidmore]

13. You know, the backlash is coming. And when it comes,

the people who are going to be the most astounded are the political operatives and the incumbents--both sides of the aisle. The Rs for their corruption and selling of America, and the Ds who are complicit in helping them do it.

[rpgamerd00d]

14. I want publically funded elections so we can do as you say.

Until then, I want the richest candidate to run.

[welshTerrier2]

10. "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin"

the premise of your question is truly very sad ... it fails to recognize the hopes of "new candidates" and those who believe in them ... it fails to allow for a challenger to "come from behind" ... it empowers the mightly against the weak ... it endorses big money, big name and incumbency against a fledgling candidacy with a new face, a new way, a new message ...

the black and white favoring of those who are ahead over those who challenge and and hope to offer something new is a truly sad commentary on how you see political struggle ... embodied behind your question is the tragic idea that those with power and money should be promoted and endorsed while those who challenge them should be cast aside ... you won't find much progress in the world seeing things like that ...

a very wise American poet once wrote:

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

[rpgamerd00d]

12. Thats great in fantasy land, but Dems need to run for office in the real

world where money means winning and no money means losing.

Once the nation is converted to publicly funded elections, then we can embrace your philosophy (which I agree with).

[welshTerrier2]

17. allowing a primary to go forward without interference is NOT fantasy

you're taking a campaign that just started a couple of months ago and wanting to declare a winner ... that's wrong ...

it deprives both the voters and the candidates an opportunity to engage in a fair fight and let legitimate differences be aired ... if the facts as you presented them existed on primary day, perhaps the situation would be different ...

and even then, your sole focus on winning rather than on any consideration of the issues whatsoever is particularly distasteful ... sometimes you should just vote for what you believe in ... winning is obviously important but so is fighting for your beliefs ...

[rpgamerd00d]

18. Your scenario only works with public funding.

Again, REAL, ACTUAL elections today are decided by money, period.
If money is equal, then you can look at the things you described (issues, stances, differences, personality, etc.)
When its not even close, then its a no brainer.

The problem with the Democratic party (sometimes) is that it can't see the forest for the trees.
Today: No publiclly funded elections, candidates must have tons of $.
Tomorrow: Publiclly funded elections, candidates can run on their merrits alone.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the real world?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge the job of Dem Leaders to try to ensure victory for the Dem Party?

[welshTerrier2]

19. "Dem leaders"

i put most, not all but most, of the blame for what happened here directly on "Dem leaders" ... Rahm Emanuel should NOT have publicly called for Hackett to get out of the race ... this was very poorly handled and has resulted in all sorts of very damaging conduct ...

and btw, since the campaign began, the candidates were virtually dead even in fundraising ... that's not a particularly good sign for Brown who has been around much longer ... btw, i was not and am not a Hackett supporter ...

[rpgamerd00d]

20. We don't have the responsibility, we can't second guess the call

Its armchair quarterbacking.

[welshTerrier2]

24. you call it "armchair quarterbacking"

i call it leaving it up to the voters ... i also call what the party's done arrogance and elitism ... i also call it a surefire way to lose ...

there's much of what Hackett's done i don't like or agree with ... but ultimately, the party itself is responsible for this mess ...

when those controlling the party learn to trust the voters, maybe then we'll see some progress ... i truly hope that you're right and i'm wrong about what's happening here ... i think DeWine was incredibly vulnerable ... unfortunately, i think the damage has been done and that Brown won't recover ...

[rpgamerd00d]

27. OK, I call it "the way non-publiclly funded election" politics works.

[mopinko]

21. who's your daddy? that's what i want to know

if i am picking candidates for the party of we the people, i would hope that baby warbucks would not have a chance to win. if he does, then I AM THE ONE NOT doing my job.

[Fleshdancer]

25. BINGO.

For a Democratic party, we should be acting a lot more democratically. And why we keep putting Democratic leaders on a pedestal at this point is beyond me. It's the very definition of insanity.