I don’t think anybody actually wants our elections to be perpetual. I imagine it’d be easy to fix, except for the fact that longer elections cost more and this means the richest have more sway. I bet they’d resist.
That, plus like everything else in America, an entire business has sprung up around running federal elections. Longer campaigns require more staffers, strategists, pollsters, advertisers, etc. It’s a billion dollar industry unto itself.
Honestly, if it wasn’t one of the most powerful and influential countries of the world, it would be helluva entertainment. I’d invest in popcorn stocks.
On the other hand, if it wasn’t one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world nobody would care.
I think the parties and the companies that own them want the elections to be perpetual, to keep us distracted and fighting each other. It also gives the companies a lot more time to bribe donate to candidates.
But honestly though, I wonder how many “liberals” (let alone people who were undecided, even though it’s hard to imagine they exist) won’t be too happy about a black woman as the candidate
OC might be non native speaker. There is e.g. in German a conjunction (wenn) which is used to indicate both, temporal (when) or conditial meaning (if).
Too short election terms make for a dysfunctional government. With the usual 4-5 years most countries use half of that term is already spent campaigning for the next, forcing the government to do anything unpopular (but often necessary) during the first years, and then tone it down and do popular things else they have no chance of getting re elected.
If you shortened that further the politicians would be forced into a perpetual state of pandering to the voter base instead of actually governing.
When Kamala wins, I’m curious if it will encourage a shorter election cycle, so people are still excited about their candidate when voting starts.
I don’t think anybody actually wants our elections to be perpetual. I imagine it’d be easy to fix, except for the fact that longer elections cost more and this means the richest have more sway. I bet they’d resist.
Time to stop handing control of society to rich people who lack experience of being a normal human being.
It was time for that fifty years ago, but today would be fine too
Nobody handed it to them, they took it thousands of years ago and have had it ever since.
That, plus like everything else in America, an entire business has sprung up around running federal elections. Longer campaigns require more staffers, strategists, pollsters, advertisers, etc. It’s a billion dollar industry unto itself.
Honestly, if it wasn’t one of the most powerful and influential countries of the world, it would be helluva entertainment. I’d invest in popcorn stocks.
On the other hand, if it wasn’t one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world nobody would care.
I think the parties and the companies that own them want the elections to be perpetual, to keep us distracted and fighting each other. It also gives the companies a lot more time to
bribedonate to candidates.Love that optimism.
But honestly though, I wonder how many “liberals” (let alone people who were undecided, even though it’s hard to imagine they exist) won’t be too happy about a black woman as the candidate
OC might be non native speaker. There is e.g. in German a conjunction (wenn) which is used to indicate both, temporal (when) or conditial meaning (if).
Today I learned! That is a useful bit of help for daily life. Danke.
I wasn’t a fan in 2020, but just seeing her now is kinda relaxing. 80+ President? She held a place of reassurance in that.
.
We’ve had so much chaos and stress. Against that context, seeing her relaxes me, has for a bit now.
.
High odds Whitmer will be the other side of that ticket after August.
Hopefully a few of them remember not voting for Clinton in 2016 with loathing and shame, and see this as their chance to make amends.
Too short election terms make for a dysfunctional government. With the usual 4-5 years most countries use half of that term is already spent campaigning for the next, forcing the government to do anything unpopular (but often necessary) during the first years, and then tone it down and do popular things else they have no chance of getting re elected.
If you shortened that further the politicians would be forced into a perpetual state of pandering to the voter base instead of actually governing.
I think they’re referring to the length of the campaigning season, not the presidential term