WWTBAM Bored

Here's what puzzles me. There are however many thousands of people, most if not all Democrats, all gathered in this huge production. Then, they trot out all the democrat luminaries to give speeches telling how great Obama is and all the wonderful things he will do for the country. But, what puzzles me is why is all of this necessary? Isn't that the height of preaching to the choir? Now, I understand that this is where they will "officially" nominate him but why all the extra pomp? Aren't all the people there already going to vote for him? I think a couple of Republicans should be trotted out to give a speech and tell what a wonderful candidate McCain would be and try to change some minds. I have always thought this about the candidates and when they do all of their campaigning. Why not have McCain go into a Democratic stronghold city or state and try to persuade some minds rather than preaching to people that are already on his side? What am I not getting?

Sir_Galahad wrote:Here's what puzzles me. There are however many thousands of people, most if not all Democrats, all gathered in this huge production. Then, they trot out all the democrat luminaries to give speeches telling how great Obama is and all the wonderful things he will do for the country. But, what puzzles me is why is all of this necessary? Isn't that the height of preaching to the choir? Now, I understand that this is where they will "officially" nominate him but why all the extra pomp? Aren't all the people there already going to vote for him? I think a couple of Republicans should be trotted out to give a speech and tell what a wonderful candidate McCain would be and try to change some minds. I have always thought this about the candidates and when they do all of their campaigning. Why not have McCain go into a Democratic stronghold city or state and try to persuade some minds rather than preaching to people that are already on his side? What am I not getting?

The party conventions are for the PR. Each candidate hopes to get a "bounce" following the convention as "regular people" hear about the candidate's platform, etc. They're also a celebration for those who backed the winning candidate and a chance to mend fences (especially important this year for both parties).

Think of it as a combination Shriners convention and college pep rally. Its objective is to rile up the faithful to a fever pitch for the campaign and election. In today's media frenzy, it's an infomercial for your platform and message. It's a chance to meet with other power brokers and form strategy, make contacts to help yourself advance in the party, and just generally eat, drink and party with people who mostly agree with your view of the world.

It's all about power, who has it, and how to get it.

Sir_Galahad wrote:I think a couple of Republicans should be trotted out to give a speech and tell what a wonderful candidate McCain would be and try to change some minds.

Isn't that what Bill and Hillary are for?

This is funny, I was just thinking about this last night when they forced an hour of it on me "Where is my Two and a Half Men, dammit!" and I thought I might actually post the question.

Obviously, there is tons of coverage here outside of the regular national programming and they were just going on and on about how much applause Michelle Obama got and all this other jive and I thought, well, duh, it's a room full of Obama supporters! Why wouldn't she get thundering applause?

Which brought up the question, why spend all the time and money on this if the purpose is just to announce the nominee? Can't they do that for about $1.47 by sending in the paperwork?

So, basically, it's just a big circle jerk of chest pounding, glad handing and a chance for a bunch of schmoes to get out of town, drink a lot and snag themselves a case of the clap from a local roundheels.

At least that's what I gathered.

Here's Fanny! wrote:So, basically, it's just a big circle jerk of chest pounding, glad handing and a chance for a bunch of schmoes to get out of town, drink a lot and snag themselves a case of the clap from a local roundheels.

(HIC!) Damn, is thish a great country orrrr what.... (HIC!, HIC!)

No, it's not a room ful of Obama supporters; it's a room 55% full of Obama supporters.

This is where the Democrats have to unify. All those Clinton supporters need to vote for Obama or he won't win.

One might say that the Clinton supporters (other than the ones required to be at the convention) would just ignore the convention, to avoid the Obama brainwashing.

Not that I'm speaking from experience, but I spent the evening watching episodes of Iron Chef America I had saved on the DVR...

Conventions have changed over the years, in the past it was a platform where sometimes opposing parts of the party had the opportunity to express their views freely. Thats not the case today, now everything is packaged neat and tidy into a one hour infomercial on network TV.

Sometimes they were contentious and brokered ie: Rep 1976- Dems 1968. With all the anger within the populous over the past 8 plus years I was praying for a brokered convention where the party was in position to fight it out.

Its a shame in a position to show a forced unity, Bill errr I mean Hillary Clinton was persuaded to realeas her delegates the other day. I ask the question what ever happened to having the right to vote your choice. Who really cares if her delegates vote for her in the Presidential Nominees process. Even though I personally am not a fan of the cub fan carpet bagging junior senator from the empire state. They earned the right to have their opinions and voices heard.

As for the otherside their infomercials are next week same bat time same bat channel... Amazingly the hostes will be our own princess smokie....I sure hope the libratarians or green party move their convention to idaho so our other princess does not feel left out.

admanvii wrote:Even though I personally am not a fan of the cub fan carpet bagging junior senator from the empire state.

And here I thought we were called the Land of Lincoln!

Dawn Clark Netsch wrote:

admanvii wrote:Even though I personally am not a fan of the cub fan carpet bagging junior senator from the empire state.

And here I thought we were called the Land of Lincoln!

I thought that was Kentucky.

Here's Fanny! wrote:So, basically, it's just a big circle jerk of chest pounding, glad handing and a chance for a bunch of schmoes to get out of town, drink a lot and snag themselves a case of the clap from a local roundheels.

Hey! I prefer "chippy", beyotch!

I keep up with archaic slang in between customers, you know...

What I don't understand is why after all this national publicity barely 50 per cent of the eligible voters show up on election day. Even fewer if it is not a presidential election.

macrae1234 wrote:What I don't understand is why after all this national publicity barely 50 per cent of the eligible voters show up on election day. Even fewer if it is not a presidential election.

One good reason is that we hold our elections on a Tuesday, which is not necessarily the most convenient time. We would be better off, IMO, to hold our elections on weekends as other countries do.

Of course there are other reasons - we take the vote for granted, we don't like who's running (or don't despise someone enough to vote for the other candidate), etc.

ulysses5019 wrote:

Dawn Clark Netsch wrote:

admanvii wrote:Even though I personally am not a fan of the cub fan carpet bagging junior senator from the empire state.

And here I thought we were called the Land of Lincoln!

I thought that was Kentucky.

Should be Indiana. Raised there from age 7 to 21. Those are what I'd call formative years. Sure, like a lot of us he left the state to get a job but he's a Hoosier, no doubt about it.

Here's Fanny! wrote:So, basically, it's just a big circle jerk of chest pounding, glad handing and a chance for a bunch of schmoes to get out of town, drink a lot and snag themselves a case of the clap from a local roundheels.

I love Fanny's descriptions.

kayrharris wrote:

Here's Fanny! wrote:So, basically, it's just a big circle jerk of chest pounding, glad handing and a chance for a bunch of schmoes to get out of town, drink a lot and snag themselves a case of the clap from a local roundheels.

I love Fanny's descriptions.

Me too. I look forward to her posts.

kayrharris wrote:

Here's Fanny! wrote:So, basically, it's just a big circle jerk of chest pounding, glad handing and a chance for a bunch of schmoes to get out of town, drink a lot and snag themselves a case of the clap from a local roundheels.

I love Fanny's descriptions.

Many women there, too. The chest pounding might sound a bit squishy. And what's the female equivalent of "schmo" or the male equivalent of "roundheel"?

If nothing else, women like Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina have proven that a woman can screw up just as well as a man.

Here's Fanny! wrote:
So, basically, it's just a big circle jerk of chest pounding, glad handing and a chance for a bunch of schmoes to get out of town, drink a lot and snag themselves a case of the clap from a local roundheels.

I haven't heard the phrase "circle jerk" in a long time.

earendel wrote:

macrae1234 wrote:What I don't understand is why after all this national publicity barely 50 per cent of the eligible voters show up on election day. Even fewer if it is not a presidential election.

One good reason is that we hold our elections on a Tuesday, which is not necessarily the most convenient time. We would be better off, IMO, to hold our elections on weekends as other countries do.

Of course there are other reasons - we take the vote for granted, we don't like who's running (or don't despise someone enough to vote for the other candidate), etc.

Statewide and local elections in Louisiana are held on Saturday. That still hasn't prevented the good citizens of LA from electing some of the worst crooks in history.

Tocqueville3 wrote:Statewide and local elections in Louisiana are held on Saturday. That still hasn't prevented the good citizens of LA from electing some of the worst crooks in history.

Weekend elections don't mean you get better choices. It only means that more people show up to vote for them. This spreads the blame across a larger number of people. Therefore the adage: "When everybody's responsible, nobody's responsible."

earendel wrote:

macrae1234 wrote:What I don't understand is why after all this national publicity barely 50 per cent of the eligible voters show up on election day. Even fewer if it is not a presidential election.

One good reason is that we hold our elections on a Tuesday, which is not necessarily the most convenient time. We would be better off, IMO, to hold our elections on weekends as other countries do.

Of course there are other reasons - we take the vote for granted, we don't like who's running (or don't despise someone enough to vote for the other candidate), etc.

And this is exactly why we should have a National Apathy Party.

But that might not be a good thing cuz the NAP will win, get into office, sit around, and watch the country go straight to hell in a handbasket because... frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn.

REMOVE DUPLICATE

REMOVING DUPLICATE

In case anyone is interested.

By federal law since 1792, the U.S. Congress permitted the states to conduct their presidential elections (or otherwise to choose their Electors) anytime in a 34 day period before the first Wednesday of December, which was the day set for the meeting of the Electors of the U.S. president and vice-president (the Electoral College), in their respective states. An election date in November was seen as useful because the harvest would have been completed (important in an agrarian society) and the winter storms would not yet have begun in earnest (a plus in the days before paved roads and snowplows). However, the problems borne of this arrangement were obvious and were intensified by improved communications via train and telegraph: the states that voted later could swell, diminish, or be influenced by a candidate's victories in the states that voted earlier. In close elections, the states that voted last might well determine the outcome.

A uniform date for chosing presidential Electors was instituted by the Congress in 1845. Many theories have been advanced as to why the Congress settled on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the national day for choosing presidential Electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the Electoral College met) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was amended to move the national date for choosing presidential Electors forward to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in the state of New York.

As for the day of the week chosen, Sunday was ruled out because it was the Sabbath. An election on Monday might require travel on Sunday, and so was also ruled out. Tuesday had no problem.