U.S. Democratic National Convention 2012

[Randomizer]

We've got a 56 page thread on the Republican Presidential Primary, but I don't see anything on the Democratic National Convention. I don't want Obama seeing a second term, so if there's anyone wroth voting for amongst the pile of democrats I'd like them to get the nomination instead. This article mentions some candidates running in various parties. The convention is going to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, during the week of September 3rd, 2012.

According to Wikipedia, Charlotte passed some new BS laws in preparation for the Democratic Convention:

The city has also passed a variety of new laws, intended to curtail protest activity. These include:

* Rules prohibiting camping on public property.
* Restricting the use of a list of different items: "cables, bars, projectiles, spray guns, breakable containers," aerosol containers, fireworks, smoke bombs, pepper spray, mace, masks, scarves, body-armor, helmets, and police scanners.

These laws are permanent and will remain effective after the end of the convention. They may also have ramifications before the convention: namely, the eviction of Occupy Charlotte from its encampment downtown.

Also according to Wikipedia, "Only six states; New Hampshire, Missouri, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, West Virgina; have permitted challengers to President Obama, and a seventh, Ohio, had Randall Terry on the ballot, but he was taken off before they had a chance to be printed." The Washington Times said that, Obama got 57% of the vote in Oklahoma's primary on Tuesday, "In most states Mr. Obama was the only name on the ballot, so protest votes weren't allowed." and "Mr. Obama has won more than 83 percent of all votes cast in the Democratic primary process in 2012.

Here's a video of Democratic candidate Vermin Supreme giving a speech in January in New Hampshire. His tagline is "I am a tyrant that you should trust." and "Remember, a vote for Vermin Supreme is a vote completely thrown away." Apparently this is his second time running. He also has a website.

Here's the full 1 hour 50 minute video of the Lesser-Known Presidential Candidates Forum in New Hampshire. The Republicans are on first.

I wanted to be more informative but I can't find the info I'm looking for. Specifically, "Are the primaries over, or can some states still vote (and when)?", "What happens at the Convention? Is the winner already selected from the primary vote, or can people vote at the Convention itself?", and "Who are the candidates?" Wikipedia lists 15 Democratic challengers in one place, the video I posted claims there are 14 (maybe someone joined since then?) and Wikipedia lists 4 current challengers in another, and I can't seem to find the info I'm looking for on official Democrat websites.

[omgryebread]

So you basically want the Republicans to win? Unseating an incumbent in the primaries would almost certainly lose the election.

Most states have some restrictions to get on the ballot, and Democrats who are in the race are running vanity campaigns they know they can't win.

DNC will be a mix of attacking the Republican nominee and cheerleading for Obama. Only interesting thing will be seeing who the keynote is. The convention for the incumbent is always boring.

Some states still have primaries! Same time as republican primaries. Your vote is still important, since local elections are also on the ballot.

Primaries determine the state delegates in the first round of voting at the convention. The Democratic party has superdelegates who can vote as they please. If there is no winner after the first round, then states can vote as a bloc for whoever.

[sardia]

He stated in his second line that he doesn't want Obama to win. Anyway, if you disagree with Obama, your best choice is to participate via donating or helping one of the candidates. There are other options, like voting in your local primary election. You may be locked into a republican only primary, depends on the state, but you could be able to vote for democrats in their local primaries. You know, district leaders, mayors, congressmen, state legislatures.

[wumpus]

Oddly enough, it might be more interesting to stick Obama on as many republican primaries as possible (I assume that both parties closed this hole roughly when primaries first got started).

Incumbents are only challenged when their own party wants them to lose. Obama has certainly done enough to antagonize his base (largely through following through on his "attempt to work with Republicans" promises), but not enough so that his base want any of the current GOP jokers in office.

[Garm]

All the Democratic candidates worth voting for are waiting until 2016. Despite all the antagonizing of his base that Obama has done primarying him would be a really stupid idea. Don't like him? Too bad. Honestly, he's been more or less the president I thought he'd be. I'm pretty disappointed with his record on personal freedoms but if you thought he was going to rein in the power of the executive branch then you were fooling yourself.

[Dauric]

All the Democratic candidates worth voting for are waiting until 2016. Despite all the antagonizing of his base that Obama has done primarying him would be a really stupid idea. Don't like him? Too bad. Honestly, he's been more or less the president I thought he'd be. I'm pretty disappointed with his record on personal freedoms but if you thought he was going to rein in the power of the executive branch then you were fooling yourself.

No president reigned in the powers of the executive (save maybe Washington imposing a term limit on himself). Executive powers are usually limited by the Legislative or the Judicial, which is ostensibly the way the system is set up.

Problem is the politicians in the legislative are (at the moment) too interested in installing a sympathetic executive and making use of those expanded powers for their own goals than they are in maintaining any semblance of a balance of power between the branches.

I generally get the impression that Obama blew the entirety of his political capital on the ACA, and reducing the executive powers would have made his administration effectively irrelevant in the face of the nonsense that went on in the legislature.

[omgryebread]

A strong executive helps the parties in a lot of ways. If they have a popular guy, it lets them ride his coattails. People don't get excited about House races, but if you get them excited about the presidential, they'll show up and help you win the House.

If the public is unhappy, you can shove blame off on the president. If he's in the other party, groovy. If he's in your own party and you control Congress as well, back away. You don't even have to have that make sense. Call Bush2 too liberal, and if you do it hard enough, it'll work. Sure, you slam someone who could be an important leader in your party, but you sacrifice him so your whole party doesn't go down hard. If it's your guy, and you don't control the legislature, blame the Do Nothing Congress.

If the public is happy and it's your guy in office, great, you win. If it's the other guy, and you control Congress, well, Do Nothing. You'll probably win the blame game because people focus on the president. If the other guys control both branches, it doesn't really matter to you which branch is more powerful.


When you're actually in power and trying to govern, handing off as much power as you can to a friendly president lets you get more things done quicker, because executive orders and regulatory power are much quicker and more efficient than legislative power.


Military powers have been handed off to the president because it means Congress gets to avoid voting to authorize a lot of stuff that would be an uncomfortable vote either way they voted.

Police powers because Congress generally wants to increase it, but doesn't want to actually vote to increase it.

[Whammy]

All the Democratic candidates worth voting for are waiting until 2016. Despite all the antagonizing of his base that Obama has done primarying him would be a really stupid idea. Don't like him? Too bad. Honestly, he's been more or less the president I thought he'd be. I'm pretty disappointed with his record on personal freedoms but if you thought he was going to rein in the power of the executive branch then you were fooling yourself.

No president reigned in the powers of the executive (save maybe Washington imposing a term limit on himself). Executive powers are usually limited by the Legislative or the Judicial, which is ostensibly the way the system is set up.

Problem is the politicians in the legislative are (at the moment) too interested in installing a sympathetic executive and making use of those expanded powers for their own goals than they are in maintaining any semblance of a balance of power between the branches.

I generally get the impression that Obama blew the entirety of his political capital on the ACA, and reducing the executive powers would have made his administration effectively irrelevant in the face of the nonsense that went on in the legislature.

Eh, there's been like one or two President's who didn't expand Presidential power.Washington did expand it, especially in treaty-making power since he tried to sit with Congress once to get a treaty created and by the end was basically "Never doing this again...EVER" (and that's how President's got the power to negotiate treaties *nods*), and in controlling his administration. Grant didn't , and Harrison is grade-A congressional president. And Taft had the philosophy to go for a weakened executive....oh and all the president's between Polk and Lincoln were, well, they were there and that's it. But yeah, more often than not President's expanded or maintained power in some way unless Congress stopped them (basically everyone between Johnson and Theodore Roosevelt, with the in-betweens fighting the entire time to get back power is a good example), whether in ability to communicate and appeal to the public, actual powers, or bureaucracy. And you're pretty much right when you said our system was built for this conflict to happen. Go conflict!

Presidency stuff aside, yeah, Democratic National Convention really isn't that important. About the only way you're going to get an incumbent president to actually have a primary is if said incumbent decides not to run (like LBJ) or they are just a terrible president (...no example comes to mind at the moment). Obama is okay in the polls (somewhere in the 40s? decent enough), no real challengers or big names have come, and Democrats won't risk breaking up the party when it looks as if Republicans can't get a decent challenger either that they can get excited about.

In short: Obama is doing a decent enough job that they'll grumble but not do anything. Now if he was like LBJ level of dislike, well, then you'd have something.

[lutzj]

About the only way you're going to get an incumbent president to actually have a primary is if said incumbent decides not to run (like LBJ) or they are just a terrible president (...no example comes to mind at the moment).

Taft faced a major challenge at the 1912 Republican Convention from Theodore Roosevelt. You're right that it almost never happens, because it splits the party between into pro- and anti-incumbent camps and therefore loses the election (which is why the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, won with only about 42% of the popular vote later that year).

[LaserGuy]

I really can't imagine there being any serious contenders to Obama from within the Democratic Party. They ought to realise that the election is theirs to lose, and giving a vote of non-confidence in their president would be a great way to do that. 2016 should be an interesting year for the Democrats though.

[Whammy]

About the only way you're going to get an incumbent president to actually have a primary is if said incumbent decides not to run (like LBJ) or they are just a terrible president (...no example comes to mind at the moment).

Taft faced a major challenge at the 1912 Republican Convention from Theodore Roosevelt. You're right that it almost never happens, because it splits the party between into pro- and anti-incumbent camps and therefore loses the election (which is why the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, won with only about 42% of the popular vote later that year).

Oh right, Taft...how the heck did I forget that? XD. That's an even better example than LBJ really, although some of Taft's issues also come from the attempts to purge the party ahead of time (...to stop all the pro-TR and progressives XD).

So yeah, Taft ruined it for everyone cause NO PARTY wants that kind of thing to happen to themselves again.

[addams]

All the Democratic candidates worth voting for are waiting until 2016. Despite all the antagonizing of his base that Obama has done primarying him would be a really stupid idea. Don't like him? Too bad. Honestly, he's been more or less the president I thought he'd be. I'm pretty disappointed with his record on personal freedoms but if you thought he was going to rein in the power of the executive branch then you were fooling yourself.

How about using the power of the executive branch?
Yeah. I know; Like waiting for the Easter Bunny.
Still; I had hope.

Spoiler for strange Rant.

Spoiler:

If, Bush II could create Homeland Security, then, Obama could dismantle it.
If, Bush II could use Cuba for a prison, then, Obama could close it down and have a party to officially give that little bit of land back to the people of Cuba. If, we don't like them, then; What are we doing hanging out at their place?!

A long time ago, I had some facts explained to me. The President of the United States is not a powerful position. The President is the 'Head of State'. The President needs to look good and have good manners. The President goes off to funerals and weddings and makes high minded encouraging statements to the the people.

There was a time that the President WAS the most powerful man on the planet. Not because he was President, but, because he had been Head of the CIA, first. He, just, wanted to be on stage for a while.

Bush II was our clueless leader, because, he was a place holder for Bush I's third term. What happened under Bush II could have happened under any president. Bush I wanted his name on it. He is now an old man. He can wander off across the Golf course knowing that his name will take up a great deal of space on library book shelves. Yep. Godwin's Law.

Jimmy Carter had sweeping effects. No one talks nor writes much about Mr. Carter. He was my hero. It was not Mr. Carter, alone. He had some fine men and women working for him. There were quiet noble domestic policies put in place and supported by Mr. Carter. I owed him a great deal.

The world and the way the US operates has changed. The changes for me have been substantial.

Sense the 2000 election, the US is has become a strange and dangerous place. The people are suffering both in body from poverty and is spirit from fear.

Yeah. Watching the 24 hour news cycle and who is allowed to speak and what stupid shit they are allowed to say is a fine hobby. That is all it is; A Hobby.

Is there anyone that still thinks that the US is better than other nations?
Who?

"It is not who votes that matters. It is who counts the votes that matters."
by, Some Smarty Pants with a clear view and a sense of humor.

Boo Hoo. I am cynical. I don't like it. I loved being a hopeful idealist.

I saw the parks being shut down and the people turned away. When I asked, "Why?" I was told, "No money for staff."

I was one person. There were four uniformed personal used to toss me out of that park. One of the nicest places I have ever been tossed out of.

Who gives a Flying Fuck who holds the office of President. It is a helpless and dangerous position. Who would want it?

Does anyone think that Bush II wrote the Patriot Act? He didn't. I am willing to bet he did not read it. Not ever. He does not have the ability to read very well.

What has Mr. Obama done for the people of the US? After four years, what can we point to as an important accomplishment? He could have killed the Patriot Act. He did not even question that fucked up document! He, just, signed an extension. I do not blame the man. He is simply a flesh and blood man. He got to be Prom King. Yeah! Him!

He and his wife look good. He is an educated man. He does not embarrass us the way that last dip shit did. He can be Prom King, again.