WaPo: candidates outside preconceived notions of "D" and "R" are bad

[pvn]

http://reason.com/blog/show/120094.html

[ QUOTE ]
From a repellent unsigned editorial in today's Washington Post:

[ QUOTE ]
If you tuned in to the recent Republican and Democratic presidential debates, you may have had the same reaction as many viewers looking at the crowded stages: Who's that? The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he's a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he's a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans. If the standard is that any declared candidate is entitled to a podium, we're going to end up with even more crowded stages in 2012.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, there were plenty of candidates on those stages who really were clutter: They don't have a chance to win and their messages are indistinguishable from the people who do have a shot. But it's telling that the Post didn't single out, say, Chris Dodd or Jim Gilmore. It singled out the two most anti-war and anti-establishment figures in the race, two men who clearly are alternatives to the frontrunners.

[/ QUOTE ]

But remember, if you vote for a "fringe" candidate, you're "throwing your vote away" (as opposed to casting a vote for a "real" candidate wich has less than a 1/13,000 chance of making a difference)!

The WaPo doesn't want any "troublemakers" in the race because A) it would make their job harder (they might have to actually report on some issues) and B) it might make their readers think (which could lead to god knows what - perhaps they'll even turn to sources other than the newspaper!).

[Misfire]

pvn pwns

[PLS]

It's particularly disturbing that they specifically called out Gravel and Paul.

[Nielsio]

Who reads newspapers anyway?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Who reads newspapers anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]
I do, and you do too.

I've got a copy of the Chicago Tribune on my desk right now. You might not actually read newspapers, but most news that gets reported in blogs and other internet sites was originally reported by newspapers or wire services that sell to newspapers. This includes the Guliani quote that you all are in an uproar about.

Newspapers are the number one check the people have on the government. That whole "Freedom of the Press" thing that we use to keep the government honest is pretty much the exclusive province of the Washington Post, New York Times and the Associated Press. Its not that others don't have that right, but those three organizations are the only news outlets spending lots of money to investigate the government. Everyone else, including blogs, is basically regurgitating what they report when it comes to the Federal Govt.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
http://reason.com/blog/show/120094.html

[ QUOTE ]
From a repellent unsigned editorial in today's Washington Post:

[ QUOTE ]
If you tuned in to the recent Republican and Democratic presidential debates, you may have had the same reaction as many viewers looking at the crowded stages: Who's that? The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he's a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he's a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans. If the standard is that any declared candidate is entitled to a podium, we're going to end up with even more crowded stages in 2012.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, there were plenty of candidates on those stages who really were clutter: They don't have a chance to win and their messages are indistinguishable from the people who do have a shot. But it's telling that the Post didn't single out, say, Chris Dodd or Jim Gilmore. It singled out the two most anti-war and anti-establishment figures in the race, two men who clearly are alternatives to the frontrunners.

[/ QUOTE ]

But remember, if you vote for a "fringe" candidate, you're "throwing your vote away" (as opposed to casting a vote for a "real" candidate wich has less than a 1/13,000 chance of making a difference)!

The WaPo doesn't want any "troublemakers" in the race because A) it would make their job harder (they might have to actually report on some issues) and B) it might make their readers think (which could lead to god knows what - perhaps they'll even turn to sources other than the newspaper!).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your candidates are who we tell you they are, so shut up and drink your kool-aid.

glad they weren't around to hamstring Ventura's trip to the Governor's seat in 1998. He wasn't considered a viable candidate for a long time, but was included in the debates (at the insistance of Humphrey's campaign) and got the exposure and recognition needed to begin creeping up in the polls till election day.

RB

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
(as opposed to casting a vote for a "real" candidate wich has less than a 1/13,000 chance of making a difference)!

[/ QUOTE ]

13,000 to 1? In a presidential election, I have a hard time believing the odds are even this good. When you consider that...

-even the "swing states" have margins of victory around 100,000
-even if your vote somehow, against all odds, determines the outcome of your state, it's not a guarantee to swing the actual election results

I'd put it at closer to 13 million to 1.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(as opposed to casting a vote for a "real" candidate wich has less than a 1/13,000 chance of making a difference)!

[/ QUOTE ]

13,000 to 1? In a presidential election, I have a hard time believing the odds are even this good. When you consider that...

-even the "swing states" have margins of victory around 100,000
-even if your vote somehow, against all odds, determines the outcome of your state, it's not a guarantee to swing the actual election results

I'd put it at closer to 13 million to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember the exact assumptions, but it was something along the lines of 100,000,000 voters in a straight popular vote deal, with each voter simply flipping a coin to decide who to vote for. In other words, just figuring out the odds of getting an exact tie on 100,000,000 coinflips. In the real world, lots of other conflating factors make this a much, much longer shot. Probably by *at least* an order of magnitude.