I think that it kind of is, I mean, it's an important job and everything and many peole think they know how to run the country better than everyone else, but, I mean, canidates started advertising in mid-2006! The elections aren't till 2008! What do you think?
2007-06-15 07:13:05 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Too far in regards to how far people will go, how bad people want to be in the government
2007-06-15 07:16:40 · update #1
It has gone too far in the aspect that it has become more of a personality and popularity contest than it has the quest for good government.
Most, not all, but most candidates will promise absolutely anything to get elected.. they will try to annihilate their opponents in the most disgusting manner and then we , the public are expected to believe that they will all just play nice later and work together. how dumb do they think we are?
Is it any wonder that so few people vote. We must have one of the worst voting records in the world. not even half of us actually vote. What does that say about us.. but more. what does it say about the politicians. I think it says they are out of touch with reality and with the ordinary person... they run for their own satisfaction and for the power and money they gain. Out of a hundred.. we would be lucky to find two who actually, really care about this country and the people in it. I'm not kidding!
2007-06-15 07:20:54 · answer #1 · answered by Debra H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not really. It's more an appearance of extreme than an actual extreme. Politically, there isn't much difference between the NeoConservatives of the Republican party and the Moderates of the Democratic party. In order to appeal to the voting base of their respective parties, they need to put on a dog and pony show. They have to create an appearance of differences, when there really isn't much difference. the problem is, the shows have to keep getting more and more extreme, in order to keep the base happy, or at least voting. The Republicans use the "Social Conservatism" to placate the base, going on and on about issues which really don't mean jack, but they can get everyone all excited about it. The Democrats just drop down onto the other side with "Social Liberalism", again, getting the party base all excited over issues which are just smoke and mirrors. The problem they are beginning to encounter is, after *years* of playing with the voters with these nonsense issues, the voters are beginning to take the nonsense serious. This is where the appearance of the extremism is actually coming from, more and more vocal people who have *so* bought up the con job that it is just pouring out of them. Yet, it really doesn't mean anything, since the real important issues are Taxes, Spending and Federal Governmental regulation and control. Sad to say, Gay marriage is just a line of patter from Con Men, nothing more.
2016-05-21 02:42:27 · answer #2 · answered by tosha 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at the motivation and you'll find your answer. The simple truth is that as the government swells under both republican and democrat administrations the amount of power that a leader wields also grows. And people will do anything to get that power. The more we allow the government to do, the higher the stakes become, and consequently any civility or restraint is seen as a weakness. I agree that it's gone too far, but I think what we need to do is start enforcing limits on our government. They sure won't do it on their own. Do you think people would want the job if all they got to do was what's in the Constitution? Probably not, it'd be boring watching people live their own lives without interference.
2007-06-15 07:32:47 · answer #3 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's important to start the elections now so that the public will be so worn down by the process that they will not care about the obvious manipulations in the last stage of the elections.
The idea is the people who control the media know you all have very short attention spans and not much interest in the details. My guess is by 2008, a bunch of other media and celebrity blitzes will be in place and the power operators will be able to glide just about anyone and anything into office, because the public will be nodding off.
2007-06-15 07:18:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of speech permits anyone to announce they will run for President as far in advance as he/she wants.
The disadvantage to such early campaigning is that some people will get bored.
The advantage is that candidates who don't have much money or name recognition will have time to build a base of support. If they have better ideas than the well known and well financed candidates, hopefully their base of support will grow over time as people hear about them and their ideas.
Some people don't even tune into a Presidential contest until a few weeks before the election, and that is an even bigger problem than starting campaigns too early, I think. By a few weeks before an election the candidate with the best ideas may have no chance of getting her/his ideas out to the public, and the public might not have enough time to consider the ideas.
http://www.yaktivist.com
Polite Discussion, Respectful Disagreements regarding nonlethal alternatives to Abortion, Death Penalty, Lethal Weapons.
2007-06-15 07:22:09 · answer #5 · answered by Yaktivistdotcom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has always been like this. As soon as one person mentions that they are going to run, the opponents would be stupid to just sit around until a year before elections. They need time to raise campaign funds and get their message out.
2007-06-15 07:17:46 · answer #6 · answered by only p 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's definitely gotten an earlier start. Part of that is because states keep moving their primaries up to avoid being irrelevant. My state of CA moved it's primary from June to February in 2008.
2007-06-15 07:17:21 · answer #7 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wish it was like in England when they call an election and then vote in 6 weeks!!
I'm sick of politics and everyone is constantly putting more effort in winning elections than doing their jobs.
2007-06-15 07:16:31 · answer #8 · answered by Sean 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
yes, it's basically a media driven puppet show in the absence of any relevant news. They dangle the candidates before us, waiting for the inevitable fauxpauxs and gaffes, casting them aside. We will then pat ourselves on the back for having the illusion of choice.
2007-06-15 07:22:04 · answer #9 · answered by Pete Schwetty 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather be armed with information than waiting to hear who is running.
Besides, the American public is so desperate for a change that we'd vote now if we could.
2007-06-15 07:16:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋