The W
Views: 97589608
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.14 0020
The W - Current Events & Politics - This can only end badly...
This thread has 38 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2454 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Seeing this reported all over the place - I'm linking to the Drudge Report so most of you will actually believe it:



WHITE HOUSE GAME SHOW: MURDOCH NET PLANS 'AMERICAN CANDIDATE'; WINNER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT '04

Move over American Idol. Here comes American President:

A Rupert Murdoch TV game show that may choose the outcome of the next White House race!

Cable channel FX is set to mount an ambitious two-year endeavor that will culminate in the American public voting on -- a
"people's candidate" to run for president of the United States in 2004!

MORE

100 candidates will start the series.

During subsequent episodes, candidates will square off in numerous competitions, like debates.

The number of semifinalists will be whittled down each week, based on live audience response and telephone/Internet voting.


Each episode will originate from all-American locales such as Mount Rushmore or the Statue of Liberty.

But the final episode of the series will be an "American Candidate" convention, held live on the National Mall in
Washington around July 4, 2004!

Viewers will determine the winning candidate from among three finalists.

The series will be seeking "the Jesse Venturas of the world, finding messages people want to hear," added Kevin Reilly,
FX's president of entertainment. "Hopefully, we'll find some very qualified civil servant who lacks a power base and maybe
also a plumber from Detroit who (tells) it like it is."

"It's like a cross between 'The War Room' and 'American Idol,"' producer RJ Cutler tells this weekend's Daily Variety.

"We will be making available to every American who is qualified, by virtue of the Constitution, the opportunity to run for
president."

Just as "American Idol" went searching for undiscovered musical talent, Cutler said "American Candidate" will be on the
hunt for untapped political and leadership skill.

It is not clear the ethical ramifications of Murdoch's NEWS CORP financing a presidential candidate's launch.

The game show appears to be inspired by a Buenos Aires television channel which is launching a series called "The People's
Candidate" -- where the winner will be nominated as a candidate for the '03 congressional elections in Argentina.


SOURCE: Click Here



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"
---Homer Simpson
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 974 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Of course this can't end up well. All of the interesting people(read: extremists) will be kicked off immediately so we wind up with two wishy-washy stiffs battling out to "represent the people" and since we'll already have that in the potential Daschle vs Edwards primary in '04, we certainly don't need it again.

Of course since I'm a political junkie, I'll watch every week and mock it.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#3 Posted on
Whoever wins has got my vote.

-Jag

Hell, if it's a woman I'll even vote twice! It's not like anybody but Bush is getting NC's votes anyway.



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2941 days
Last activity: 155 days
#4 Posted on
Holy shit -- this is for REAL? I thought it was a parody headline on Fark when I first saw it. The Onion couldn't come up with a concept this wacky, and somewhere in California, Chuck Barris is stabbing himself with a #2 pencil for not thinking of it twenty years ago.

The one way that this could be very cool would be if it was completely unfiltered and unedited -- let the candidates get up there and rant about whatever comes to mind. THAT could be fun to watch, even if it'd end up like the Morton Downey Jr. show on steroids at times. The "real" debates shut out everyone except the anointed favorites in 2000 -- this would let EVERYBODY in, and potentially present topics to a national audience that the big boys'd prefer not to address.

(Of course, since it'll be edited for TV, we know THAT's not happening.)

I disagree that the interesting/extremist types would vanish quickly -- on the contrary, mainstream candidates and speeches will make for boring TV. If people want to watch typical political debate in action, C-SPAN is already on the dial. If this entertainment-based show is to survive, the candidates with an edge to their arguments will be the ones who prosper.

The gotcha, of course, is that they couldn't prevent phone-system abuses when all that was at stake was a recording contract... and who could they get to be the swarmy critic for this show?

CANDIDATE: [yadda, yadda, yadda]
CRITIC: Riiiight. Your ideas are intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.




"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 154 days
Last activity: 154 days
#5 Posted on
Thank God we have the electoral college. Any Dems want to bash our electoral process now? Imagine the horror if Joe Sixpack on Fox's "Who wants to be an American President" or "Election Survivor", or whatever cornball title they use, could actually take the popular vote? Again, thank God we have a sound electoral system that doesn't just go by the popular vote of idiots.




Maiden RULES!!!
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#6 Posted on
Of course this can't end up well. All of the interesting people(read: extremists) will be kicked off immediately so we wind up with two wishy-washy stiffs battling out to "represent the people" and since we'll already have that in the potential Daschle vs Edwards primary in '04, we certainly don't need it again.

This is different from the 2000 elections how? Although, McCain was a lot more interesting than Bradley, despite that whole Knicks thing. As for 2004, I'll give you odds neither Daschle nor Edwards runs. Kerry will be the nominee.

As for your premise, I'm thinking the opposite. As the public will want to keep the people who make the best TV, I'm thinking they'll keep all the nutty characters. 10-1 there will be a guy who's sole platform is legalizing pot.

Thank God we have the electoral college. Any Dems want to bash our electoral process now? Imagine the horror if Joe Sixpack on Fox's "Who wants to be an American President" or "Election Survivor", or whatever cornball title they use, could actually take the popular vote? Again, thank God we have a sound electoral system that doesn't just go by the popular vote of idiots.

I know, how silly is that whole "Democracy" thing where the people actually vote for whoever they want, and the person with the most votes wins? Hey, I've got a great idea to protect the unwashed masses from themselves - why don't we just have the political elite tell us who our candidate will be. Then we can vote "yes" or "no" on them. That makes sure the "Joe Sixpacks" don't choose anyone who the political elite isn't comfortable with. And on the off chance some "idiot" won, well we'd just have to have the army come in and remove him. Worked great for the Commies.

Anyway, it's pretty much statistically impossible to win the electoral college with less than 49% of the popular vote. So I'm a little lost on how Joe Sixpack could clean up in the popular vote, but the electoral college vote would protect us by electing Winthrop Cabot Howell III or whoever.

As for the show itself? It's not like the winner gets the backing of a party or their name on the ballot or anything of any substance. They just get the TV platform. You really think they'll be able to raise enough money and put together a professional-enough organization to run for freakin; President?

The only hope is if we get a crazy rich guy on the show and they win.




Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#7 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I know, how silly is that whole "Democracy" thing where the people actually vote for whoever they want, and the person with the most votes wins? Hey, I've got a great idea to protect the unwashed masses from themselves - why don't we just have the political elite tell us who our candidate will be. Then we can vote "yes" or "no" on them. That makes sure the "Joe Sixpacks" don't choose anyone who the political elite isn't comfortable with. And on the off chance some "idiot" won, well we'd just have to have the army come in and remove him.


Earlier I'd thought to reply to Biz's post, but I couldn't think of how to put it. Thankfully, Moe came to my rescue and put it quite nicely.

-Jag

Thanks Moe



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 154 days
Last activity: 154 days
#8 Posted on
Well we went through 8 years of Clinton making the American Presidency a complete joke, so hell, why not elect some jackass who was the most popular in a tv show? How anyone can be so stupid as to vote for a clown from a game show is beyond me, but I've learned to never underestimate the stupidity of the average uneducated American.

Again, thank god for the electoral college. You know, our founding forefathers were worried about the idiot public masses and that was one of their concerns when forming the electoral college. Their foresight must be praised.

But this is all irrelevant since even though a large section of our public is really really stupid, no significant amount of registered and participating voters would vote for some idiot from some TV show.




Maiden RULES!!!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2941 days
Last activity: 155 days
#9 Posted on
Actually, we went through eight years of Clinton-bashers spending time, effort and taxpayers' money in their obsession over where the President's cock had been.

Or if I may quote the one person who SHOULD'VE been concerned about the President's cock, "All I know is that eighteen months ago, we had a surplus."



"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Jubuki
Kolbasz








Since: 16.7.02

Since last post: 4300 days
Last activity: 4283 days
#10 Posted on
Ah, the gameshow-ization of America. It's all going to come to an end soon, now. Kiss it all goodbye, everyone: this is the Apocalypse...



Chris
The AIR RAID CRASH
Fuzzy Logic
Summer sausage








Since: 31.3.02
From: Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

Since last post: 3125 days
Last activity: 2849 days
ICQ:  
#11 Posted on
Some stuff to ponder and whatnot.

1) The United States of American isn't a democracy, it just acts like it at times cause it makes people feel happy and good about themselves to think they have a say in things!

2) If'n the show actually happens, and the person who wins does run for president, who will be their running mate and will they be Rupert Murdoch's evil puppet? And what party will they run for?

3) If the person who wins is on the ballot for the presidential race in every state (I have no idea how this wacky aspect of your american democraticalizations work), and they win, and voter turnout is strangely high (like up in the 80 to 90% range), will that make people think that low voter turnout is a good thing because it will show that the people who usually don't vote are the morons of the country?

This isn't as interestingly funny a political experiment as the natural law party of canada, the elephant party of canada or the rhinocerus party of canada, or even Enza.




Jack Valenti fears NASH, EATER OF non-CHILDREN~!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2941 days
Last activity: 155 days
#12 Posted on
Or to quote another late, great master:

"I'll show you politics in America, here it is right here...

'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'

'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'

'Hey, wait a minute... there's one guy holding up both puppe-' 'SHUT UP!'

Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection; watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."

-- Bill Hicks





"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 974 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Fuzzy Logic


    1) The United States of American isn't a democracy, it just acts like it at times cause it makes people feel happy and good about themselves to think they have a say in things!




That's because we're a constitutional republic. I think we've touched on this before...


    Originally posted by Fuzzy Logic
    2) If'n the show actually happens, and the person who wins does run for president, who will be their running mate and will they be Rupert Murdoch's evil puppet? And what party will they run for?


They still have to get on the ballot. Since the party primary process will be concluded when this abortion of an idea concludes, they better get to stepping.
    Originally posted by Fuzzy Logic
    3) If the person who wins is on the ballot for the presidential race in every state (I have no idea how this wacky aspect of your american democraticalizations work), and they win, and voter turnout is strangely high (like up in the 80 to 90% range), will that make people think that low voter turnout is a good thing because it will show that the people who usually don't vote are the morons of the country.


No free country ever hits 80 or 90 percent. Those are numbers usually reserved for places like communist Yugoslavia and Hungary.

As far as getting on the ballot, the laws vary from state to state. Some states you have to pay a fee to get on the ballot. On others, you have to get a petition signed by a certain percentage of the registered voters in that state.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 387 days
Last activity: 387 days
#14 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Of course this can't end up well. All of the interesting people(read: extremists) will be kicked off immediately so we wind up with two wishy-washy stiffs battling out to "represent the people" and since we'll already have that in the potential Daschle vs Edwards primary in '04, we certainly don't need it again.

    This is different from the 2000 elections how? Although, McCain was a lot more interesting than Bradley, despite that whole Knicks thing. As for 2004, I'll give you odds neither Daschle nor Edwards runs. Kerry will be the nominee.

    As for your premise, I'm thinking the opposite. As the public will want to keep the people who make the best TV, I'm thinking they'll keep all the nutty characters. 10-1 there will be a guy who's sole platform is legalizing pot.

    Thank God we have the electoral college. Any Dems want to bash our electoral process now? Imagine the horror if Joe Sixpack on Fox's "Who wants to be an American President" or "Election Survivor", or whatever cornball title they use, could actually take the popular vote? Again, thank God we have a sound electoral system that doesn't just go by the popular vote of idiots.

    I know, how silly is that whole "Democracy" thing where the people actually vote for whoever they want, and the person with the most votes wins? Hey, I've got a great idea to protect the unwashed masses from themselves - why don't we just have the political elite tell us who our candidate will be. Then we can vote "yes" or "no" on them. That makes sure the "Joe Sixpacks" don't choose anyone who the political elite isn't comfortable with. And on the off chance some "idiot" won, well we'd just have to have the army come in and remove him. Worked great for the Commies.

    Anyway, it's pretty much statistically impossible to win the electoral college with less than 49% of the popular vote. So I'm a little lost on how Joe Sixpack could clean up in the popular vote, but the electoral college vote would protect us by electing Winthrop Cabot Howell III or whoever.

    As for the show itself? It's not like the winner gets the backing of a party or their name on the ballot or anything of any substance. They just get the TV platform. You really think they'll be able to raise enough money and put together a professional-enough organization to run for freakin; President?

    The only hope is if we get a crazy rich guy on the show and they win.





Its very easy to win a Presidential election with less than 49% of the popular vote, look at '92 when Perot took 19% of the vote, and Clinton was in the mid 40's. As for raising enough money to get votes, lets see, 6 months of free network prime time plus free coverage from the media covering the show, that's several million dollars saved for the potential candidate.



Thank you Mr. Wanz for the check, now you get an AWA World Title Reign. But be careful, my boy Greg is a heat machine.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
couldn't the game show winner go as an independant or some other "3rd" party?



Currently suffering from Pink Eye. First, chicken pox at 20, now pink eye. What's next, the mumps?
That's just my 2.461 Yen.
R-D-Z
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3813 days
Last activity: 3781 days
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by Fuzzy Logic
    Some stuff to ponder and whatnot.

    1) The United States of American isn't a democracy, it just acts like it at times cause it makes people feel happy and good about themselves to think they have a say in things!

    2) If'n the show actually happens, and the person who wins does run for president, who will be their running mate and will they be Rupert Murdoch's evil puppet? And what party will they run for?

    3) If the person who wins is on the ballot for the presidential race in every state (I have no idea how this wacky aspect of your american democraticalizations work), and they win, and voter turnout is strangely high (like up in the 80 to 90% range), will that make people think that low voter turnout is a good thing because it will show that the people who usually don't vote are the morons of the country?

    This isn't as interestingly funny a political experiment as the natural law party of canada, the elephant party of canada or the rhinocerus party of canada, or even Enza.



Name me a democracy....... name one in all of history..... that's right...... there never has been one EVER and never will be one!



Our first act is to legalize marijuana. The tyranny and the bullshit's gone on too long!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2941 days
Last activity: 155 days
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    Its very easy to win a Presidential election with less than 49% of the popular vote, look at '92 when Perot took 19% of the vote, and Clinton was in the mid 40's. As for raising enough money to get votes, lets see, 6 months of free network prime time plus free coverage from the media covering the show, that's several million dollars saved for the potential candidate.


Not so easy without that third-party factor at work. 1992 was a bit of an unusual situation, specifically because Perot was the strongest third-party candidate in decades. Nobody had broken double-digits since George Wallace in 1968, and you have to go back to 1924 and 1912 before that.

Since WWII, here's the winning percentages for years without significant third-party presences:

1988: Bush (53.4%) against Dukakis (45.6%)
1984: Reagan (58.8%) against Mondale (40.5%)
1976: Carter (50.1%) against Ford (48.0%)
1972: Nixon (60.3%) against McGovern (37.3%)
1964: LBJ (60.6%) against Goldwater (38.5%)
1960: JFK (49.7%) against Nixon (49.5%)
1956: Eisenhower (57.6%) against Stevenson (41.6%)
1952: Eisenhower (54.9%) against Stevenson (44.2%)

Some pretty clear mandates, with the infamous JFK/Nixon battle in '60 being the only one in real dispute.

Now, with third-parties stirring the pot, only one candidate has broken 50% since WWII -- Reagan in 1980.

2000: Bush (47.9%) against Gore (48.4%), Nader (2.7%) -- an election SNAFU that'll be notorious for decades.
1996: Clinton (49.2%) against Dole (40.7%), Perot (8.4%) -- roughly 50/50 between Clinton and Not Clinton.
1992: Clinton (43.0%) against Bush (37.4%), Perot (18.9%) -- the most statistically interesting election since Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" challenge in 1912.
1980: Reagan (50.8%) against Carter (41.0%), Anderson (6.6%) -- the one decent mandate of the bunch.
1968: Nixon (43.4%) against Humphrey (42.3%), George Wallace (12.9%) - the turning point for the decade.
1948: Truman (49.8%) against Dewey (45.1%), Thurmond (2.4%), Henry Wallace (2.4%) -- again, roughly 50/50 between Truman and Not Truman.

As both the Democrats and Republicans found out over the last ten years, small parties may not put up winning numbers, but ignore them at your peril...




"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#18 Posted on
It's very easy to win a Presidential election with less than 49% of the popular vote, look at '92 when Perot took 19% of the vote, and Clinton was in the mid 40's.

Ah! How can I mention a crazy rich guy in one sentence and then forget about our OWN crazy rich guy from 10 years ago in the next? Sorry, I meant to say that it's statistically impossible to lose a popular plurality by more than 2% and still win the electoral college. If we didn't have our two-party system (which the founding fathers never banked on, by the way), the whole electoral college thing would probably be a whole lot more interesting. I know Wallace carried some states in 68. Any other 3rd party candidates?

No free country ever hits 80 or 90 percent. Those are numbers usually reserved for places like communist Yugoslavia and Hungary.

Click Here

I think this depends on whether you're counting % of eligible voters or % of registered voters. As you can see here, there's a lot of free countries that get way up there, even over 90%, when it comes to % of registered voters. I'll try to find something for % of eligible voters.

Of course, maybe you aren't counting places like Sweden, Belgium, and Australia as "free" because they have a National Health Care Plan




Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3383 days
Last activity: 3377 days
#19 Posted on
"As both the Democrats and Republicans found out over the last ten years, small parties may not put up winning numbers, but ignore them at your peril..."

Or you can steal their thunder and then ignore them. This is basically what the Democrats did in 1896 by adopting Populist Party ideas into their platform, thanks in part to the oratory skills of William Jennings Bryan. The election was then set up in the media as "poor farmer and worker" Democrats vs. "capitalist" Republicans, and the Populist Party was totally marginalized.

DMC



Prof. Tripp: "No it's true, he [Errol Flynn] use to rub all sorts of things on it. Salad dressing...ground lamb..."

Traxler: "Siiick." -Wonder Boys
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2941 days
Last activity: 155 days
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I know Wallace carried some states in 68. Any other 3rd party candidates?


Since you asked...

Joseph Hospers (a Libertarian) got one in Virginia in 1972. Before that, you have to go back to Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats in '48, or settle for same-party rivals (Reagan got one as a Republican in 1976, and one oddball elector voted Bentson/Dukakis instead of Dukakis/Bentson in '88).

I hesitate to call your scenario "statistically impossible," however. While I'm not going to sit here and juggle numbers all day (though it's tempting, as I find these issues fascinating), don't most electors technically still have the right to vote for whoever they damn well please, regardless of the popular sentiment?


    Originally posted by DMC
    Or you can steal their thunder and then ignore them.


But in many cases, that's exactly what the third party would want -- their ideas put into play by a party with significantly greater impact and influence. There's a whole Green-Democrat dynamic waiting to be explored there.






"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: And the Freakshow descends upon D.C. ...
Next thread: The French did something useful with their military
Previous thread: California Governor
(2454 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The most important polls, the battleground states, show an advantage for Kerry. He's leading in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin........ Bush is in big trouble no matter how you slice it.
The W - Current Events & Politics - This can only end badly...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.145 seconds.