Social Question

josie's avatar

Do people on Fluther have any interest in the primary election season?

Asked by josie (30926points) April 7th, 2016

In the US, people are engaged in the primary election season. At the end of this, people will be presented with their presidential candidates for the 2016 general election.

Let’s see…
We have a doddering socialist who might not live long enough to see the election
We have a woman who has accomplished little other than be married to a popular ex president
We have the junior senator from Texas who leans far enough to the right to make even some conservatives uncomfortable.
We have a billionaire real estate developer who will do anything at all to close a deal, which includes getting elected president.
We have an “aw shucks” midwestern governor who won’t admit he is beaten.

I am not that old, but I can not remember a more colorful menagerie of clowns and harlequins dancing on the political stage as I am seeing now.

And yet, the questions on Fluther seem to be increasingly banal.

Are presidential politics off the table on Fluther?

If so, why?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

41 Answers

Seek's avatar

I almost want to flag this as flame bait.

josie's avatar

My point exactly.
Be a good jelly and flag away.

Seek's avatar

What exactly are you hoping to get out of this question? An argument over your descriptions of the candidates? A tally of how many people disagree with you? A list of people who have already voted or don’t plan to?

What exactly is the question?

zenvelo's avatar

I’ve seen a number of posts regarding the winnowing of candidates. But it has been going on for so long that people are fatigued.

Mariah's avatar

Lol Hillary has only accomplished being married. Nobody would ever say that about a man who had her history. Jesus Christ.

dammitjanetfromvegas's avatar

I can’t get enough of it. I’ve pissed off friends and family thanks to my political posts on facebook.

#feelinthebern

SavoirFaire's avatar

I have plenty of interest in the primary. I just don’t have a lot of interest in discussing it.

I will note, however, that you forgot about Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

rojo's avatar

I am gonna go with the doddering socialist as the lesser of a whole bunch of evils.

Rarebear's avatar

I’m finding it really fascinating, from a political science point of view. Up until 1972, primary elections didn’t mean anything—they were just showcases for the candidates. After 1972, the Democratic party changed the rules and made the primary process more democratic. The last time there was a challenge at a convention was in 1980 when Kennedy challenged Carter. After that, the conventions had much less importance and were just big parties for the presumptive nominees.

Unless she absolutely implodes, Clinton has this wrapped up (sorry Bernie supporters). But the Republican side is MUCH more interesting. If Trump can’t get to 1237 delegates which is looking more likely, and the Republicans go for a contested convention, it will be the biggest thing in party politics since Adlai Stephenson walked into the Democratic convention in 1952 not a candidate and walked out with the nomination.

So yes, I’m interested.

rojo's avatar

@Rarebear Clinton can still implode. The Reps are still wrestling that old email scandal thing and there will be hell to pay if Bernie continues to win the popular vote and is beaten by that outmoded superdelegate option.
On the Republican side, I am still waiting to hear whose name and number is on the DC Madame list. Betting it is Cruz because that is just the way those holier than thou types are.

JLeslie's avatar

I was really paying attention when it was first ramping up. I found the popularity of Trump fascinating. I also found it interesting so many republicans were in the game for a while there. Also, I feel the media is clueless, and yet ironically the media seems to have an incredible influence.

I paid a lot if attention up until the time I voted, and now I don’t tune into it very much. Watching too much politics is bad for the soul in my opinion. Once I need to pay attention again I will, but for now there isn’t much I can do so why get worked up. My state voted, so now I’m a bystander until November.

Rarebear's avatar

Nope, sorry. The math doesn’t add up. Clinton is going to win big in New York and California and wrap it up.

rojo's avatar

Clinton will lose NY

JLeslie's avatar

@rojo Cruz is the only one that it would matter. I heard people talking about it being Hillary or Bill using the DC Madame services, and I thought to myself who would care? Except that it’s illegal. That part is a problem. They also said they think Hillary and her right hand person (I can’t remember her name) are having an affair. Who would care?

Rarebear's avatar

Wanna bet? I’ll bet you a virtual beer. This to rojo obviously.

JLeslie's avatar

I can’t imagine Clinton will lose NY.

Rarebear's avatar

Of course she won’t.

Jeruba's avatar

It’s the party conventions that will determine who the candidates are, not the primaries.

LostInParadise's avatar

There have been a number of posts about the coming presidential election. Where have you been? I have previously stated how disappointing the choice of candidates is. Lately there has not been much discussion here. I think we are all starting to feel a bit fatigued by the process.

I lean toward Sanders, but not by much. I support his point of view, but question his leadership ability. I am also getting creeped out by some of his recent comments about Clinton. I liked it better when he pledged not to do negative campaigning.

cazzie's avatar

My interest is certainly in the Primary. It’s a circus most amusing. I’m not so interested to watch every debate, but I’m happy to laugh at the jokes told at the expense of the candidates. I think there are earnest candidates on both sides, but also charlatan liars. I don’t like the earnest candidates that hold Christianity up above the Constitution or laws that are already passed. I don’t like the charlatan liars because I think they are too in love with themselves to be of honest service to their country. That leaves the guy the birds like. He’s idealistic and that somehow counts heavily against him, which I think seems rather odd. He’s been independent of both major parties his entire political career and elected for many many terms by the people he represents, so I think that speaks to his leadership skills. But I can’t vote in these, so I just sit and watch. *starts to whistle… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inwzOooXRU

canidmajor's avatar

Yes we do.

CWOTUS's avatar

I think, in answer to the OP, that most American jellies know and care a lot about “the issues” and have strong opinions, as they have voiced over several years and many thousands of posts. That’s indisputable. I also believe that as generally well-informed adults they also realize that all of the candidates lie about all of the issues. It’s doubtful whether any presidential candidate can “speak truth” and win votes. (Many voters, especially those who have grown tired of listening to outright lies for decades, have gravitated to Trump and Sanders because they occasionally do say some true things – and then lie about outrageous “solutions” to things that they have identified as problems. I will note that Sanders’ lies sometimes sound so much more reasonable – I can’t believe that I just said that – as he does so. And Trump is still an unknown quantity to the extent that a lot of “real” Republicans and conservatives wonder: is he really trying to get another Democrat elected?) Meanwhile, Libertarians debate fiercely among themselves about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in Utopia.

It certainly is interesting – and with BLM and other paid protesters appearing at Trump rallies, it has shades of Chicago 1968 to make things extra-interesting with that threat of violence to spice things up – but it hardly matters to our lives. We’ll elect another lying emperor-wanna-be who will make the Executive branch of the government stronger than it already is, in total defiance of the Constitution, and about half of the voters (because I still expect less than 40% participation, even with the interest that the primaries have generated) will be wildly enthusiastic about whoever is finally elected, and then doggedly defend that person’s series of ham-handed attempts to rule for the next four to eight years.

C’est la vie.

ibstubro's avatar

If you’re on, or have access to, a desktop, try doing a Fluther search for Trump.

The primaries are alive and well on Fluther. The passion for beating the dead horse seems to be largely dormant.
What can individuals do to stop Donald Trump?
Seems to be the question, and “largely nothing’ seems to be the answer.

Realists (not to say pessimists) seem to dominate Fluther.

JLeslie's avatar

Actually, talking about NY, what are they saying about the Republican primary there? I would think Cruz doesn’t have a chance. Didn’t he say the problem with Trump is he is a New Yorker. LOL. Although, I guess upstate can interpret that as a New York City-er. I would think in the city Kasich might get a decent amount if votes actually, I don’t know about NYS as a whole. What is the media saying? Is Trump supposed to win on his home turf?

Seek's avatar

Let’s not forget Bernie is from Brooklyn.

He’s not exactly a stranger.

JLeslie's avatar

@Seek Bernie could be a cousin with half of New York City. I don’t mean actually related, I mean he is “familiar” in the same way Seinfeld is. Jewish, the accent, that whole schtick. But, Hillary feels familiar also. Interestingly, NYC put in both Giuliani and Bloomberg more than once as Mayors in recent history. Everyone thinks of NYC as super liberal, but they are very liberal on social issues, not necessarily fiscal issues. That to me goes back to what Cruz accused Trump of: being a New Yorker.

Even democrats in NYC might find Bernie unrealistic. I don’t know. I do think Bernie will get a lot of votes there, but I think Hillary will win. Goodness knows I’ve been wrong more than once though.

Pachy's avatar

This is a question that makes me want to run away from Fluther as fast as I can. Impossible for a hugely diverse group of highly opinionated people to have a reasonable, civil and well informed discussion about the state of American politics in tiny comment boxes.

janbb's avatar

It’s become kind of like going to a seder or Easter dinner with the family. You know what Republican Uncle Mike is going to say, what Sally is going to answer back, who’s going to stalk off in a huff…...Why go through that aggravation over and over again?

On Fluther as in the general political climate now, you either are in an echo chamber with your buds or pissing in the wind. Not worth it.

And, as others have said, it’s dragged on way too long.

Pachy's avatar

At least there’s only one basic Haggadah.

Cupcake's avatar

I live in Western NY and all I hear about is Bernie. Hillary Clinton is speaking here and (almost) no one I know wants to go see her. Although a few people I know want to go see her husband.

I can’t wait to see the primary results for NY… I really have no idea which way it will go.

Rarebear's avatar

Be prepared for a Clinton sweep of the big states. Clinton 95% chance of winning NY according to fivethirtyeight.com

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-york-democratic/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/pennsylvania-democratic/

What worries me is that Sanders supporters could pout when she wins the nomination. Then they will stay home or waste their vote on a third party candidate therefore propelling Cruz or Trump to the White House. This is what happened in 2000 and the result was Cheney’s wars. Now that would be a disaster.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Rarebear: “What worries me is…”

If you’re concerned about Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton, you should be. There are many of us who would not vote for Clinton in November. But please don’t insult our intelligence with the Nader myth. Also, when I marched on the eve of the Iraq invasion, I was marching against Hillary Clinton, who voted for that war.

cazzie's avatar

I do get to vote in the presidential election. I won’t throw my vote away.

Jaxk's avatar

Too many Jackals, not enough Lions.

janbb's avatar

@Jaxk The candidates or the Jellies?

Jaxk's avatar

That is a really good question. I was referring to the candidates but you make a good point.

Rarebear's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch Fortunately, the majority of Sanders voters are smarter than this and will understand that 8 years of President Cruz or Trump will be a disaster of epic proportions.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Rarebear: “What worries me is that Sanders supporters could pout when she wins the nomination. Then they will stay home or waste their vote on a third party candidate therefore propelling Cruz or Trump to the White House.”

@Rarebear: “Fortunately, the majority of Sanders voters are smarter than this and will understand that 8 years of President Cruz or Trump will be a disaster of epic proportions.”

anniereborn's avatar

I’ll just say I support a democrat. If “my” choice doesn’t get the nomination, you can sure as hell bet I will be voting for whichever one does.

cazzie's avatar

Male lions are lazy.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther