Presidential campaigns are far too long and too expensive.
Proud 2 b liberal said 10/09, 01:11 PM
It seems like this campaigning season has been going on forever. Far too long if you ask me. There are very few Americans at this point who can honestly say that they do not see the difference between the candidates in both style and substance. And the monies being used by these campaigns in obscene. This is money that could be far better used than on silly attack commercials that turn everyone off anyway.
Most other countries in the world have much shorter campaigns leading up to elections and it seems so much more sensible.
theyoungdem said 10/09, 04:44 PM
There are good reasons for campaigns to be so long. This isn't a simple job application and an interview, this is trying to get the most powerful position in the most powerful country in the world. In short, whoever becomes president will be the most powerful man in the world.
Now, I don't know about you but I want to be sure that the man/woman who is running to be a president to be genuine and perfect for the job. Finding a perfect candidate would be prevented more by making campaigns shorter. Also you say there are very few Americans who are undecided. There are actually a significant amount, this amount in the swing states are especially important. These numbers exist today which is why both candidates are campaigning as hard as they can.
Money is always needed to spread the message, what kind of message they send is up to them. If they are attacking each other on the issues then good, I want to know what each candidate says about the other. And the truth is the more money a candidate uses the better he or she would attract more voters and that's the unfortunate truth.
Who we pick now will be the leader for several years in the future.
Proud 2 b liberal said 10/09, 05:16 PM
This has been going on for two years. I suggest that 6-12 months of interviews should be sufficient for any job, and if candidates were forced to give answers instead of rhetoric, the choice would be easier. Today Obama spent 3.3 million dollars on his campaign. Even as an Obama supported that makes me cringe. Just think of the good that could be done with the kind of money these guys are spending. Republicans could use it to bolster church based groups halping young mothers. Dems could use the money in poor areas to bolster failing schools or pay for programs that help the disinfranchised.
Its such a waste.
i do think that even if you spent three years campaigning there would still be 10% undecided.
theyoungdem said 10/10, 12:33 PM
It should go on however long the candidates want it to go. Making it long leaves the most appealing standing. You suggest 6-12 months? We aren't looking for a principal for a school or a ceo of a small business, we are looking for the next president of the United States of America.
You know very well it isn't all simply interviews that they do in this time. Rallies, debates, town hall meetings, are just some of the few things that take place.
Also that spending doesn't make me cringe at all. Why should it? People donated that money for the campaign so he can spend it. It isn't as if we were forced to all pay Obama in order for him to not spend that much of it. We donated this money for campaigning. To here he spent 3.3 million dollar makes me happy, since it means he is spreading his message even more.
Now you say "think of the good that could be done with the kind of money these guys are spending", Well...what do you expect money donated to a campaign will do? If you want money to go to "good use" then donate to a charity not a presidential campaign.
It is not a waste, and the number of undecided voters are vastly smaller than they were, and they keep getting small
Proud 2 b liberal said 10/10, 12:43 PM
I disagree that the numbers of undecideds is changing much. Those who are left will make their decision going into the polls. There are so many ways that this process could be made more efficient and fair. Although I am a firm Obama supporter, I hate the fact that the only choices we seem to get from election to election are the wealthy, mostly due to the fact that the drawn out political process has become so expensive that it prohibits anyone from entering the race who does not have big money or is not backed by big money. (By the way, I do give to charity and not political campaigns)
At this point the campaigns have turned into an ugly slug fest, and nothing is being learned of substance. McCain is focussing on branding Obama a terrorist, Obama is focussing on McCain being erratic. Its all a bit dull.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I have to agree with you on some of your points, P2BL, but... considering how many people are somewhat ignorant of the candidates' positions, it seems like longer campaigns are better (but I do agree that we spend too much money on the campaigns... its a bit silly). So I'm for cheaper and maybe just as long campaigns.
Your God(ess) | 10/09/08
Report Offensive Comment
You know? I kind of like to know that the candidate has enough stamina to keep it going, and to keep from blowing up and blowing their chance during the campaign. Is it long? Yes. And do people lose enthusiasm? Yes. But the 4 years ahead are a marathon and I like knowing they are up for it.
bybrandy | 10/09/08
Report Offensive Comment
But still, a lot of the money spent is wasteful! The ads the candidates run are usually wrong or taken out of context, so why bother watching them? If anything, the media will be the ones to accurately (more or less) portray them and give the more helpful accounts of what is going on. Personally, I could do without the stupid ads.
Your God(ess) | 10/09/08
Report Offensive Comment
Stamina is fine and good but this is ridiculous. Its our money these guys are spending and all to say the same things over and over again. And don't worry about McCain being able to handle the 4 years because we will have Palin to fall back on. Oh no, forget what I said. Keep campaigning.
Proud 2 b liberal | 10/10/08
Report Offensive Comment
It is a large number of things they have to say and share, and spend tons of money just to reach everywhere then they would have to consistently keep doing this because lets face it, hearing what a candidate has to say for only one time is not a candidate that will win the election. You say its "our money", don't give them money if you will later complain about it, its as simple as that. It is like paying for a computer then complaining that the computer doesn't make pizzas. You pay for something then expect something totally different then what you're paying for.
theyoungdem | 10/10/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Your right!
jhnedrmr | 10/09/08
Report Offensive Comment