Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Most politicians start with a theory, and then use that to determine their policies. For example, candidates are routinely asked to weigh in on charter schools. Most start by stating their theoretical approach—I’m broadly in favor of or opposed to charter schools. That immediately tells voters where you stand, but it does nothing to find actual solutions. As soon as you’ve signaled which camp you belong to, both sides start yelling at each other, accomplishing nothing.

I always tried to answer questions on issues pragmatically, either: 1) I’ve seen an implementation that works and we should copy it or 2) I have yet to see an implementation that works but do you have one you could share with me? If you read a campaign 101 primer it will tell you not to do this, but I found that voters responded very strongly to this strategy. It allowed people who didn’t agree 100 percent with my viewpoints to realize that even though we weren’t entirely aligned, all ideas had a place at the table. Any idea that was provable was worth looking at, regardless of the source.....

Do I have a chance to win the race tomorrow? To be honest, it’s probably slim. It’s kind of a tragedy because everyone says they want a candidate like me, who doesn’t bow to ideology, who looks out for society instead of selling government to the highest bidder, and most of all is smart enough to handle the unknown challenges ahead. But I ran into a strategic problem I couldn’t overcome. The other two candidates are barely average. Even their supporters don’t really like them. I can’t tell you the number of times people have told me they like me better than their own party’s candidate

But the problem is, the Democrats in particular really hate the other party’s candidate. Democrats may dislike their own candidate but they are downright terrified of the Republican. They are primarily voting to keep him out of office, and that makes them unlikely to take a flier on a third-party candidate; they’d rather pick the second-best candidate than vote for me. Meanwhile, I’ve been picking up GOP support no problem because they don’t seem as afraid. That tells me that if the GOP candidate had been more adequate, I’d have pulled this off.


Here’s the thing though: It’s a democracy. If everyone who ever said “government doesn’t work for me” comes out and votes on Tuesday, I’ll win in a landslide. Stranger things have happened. I never thought one million people would call the FCC to demand net neutrality. We overturned SOPA/PIPA almost overnight, solely because regular people, powered by the Internet, stepped up and took action. I would have said these things were impossible, and pre-Internet I’m pretty sure I would have been right about that.

Now, when anyone ask me who I want to be president, I say Neil Degrasse Tyson, because he’s kind of awesome. No one hates that guy.

kalm wrote:Well...not immediately, but hopefully.

Lessons learned from running an indy campaign. Smart dude who any reasonable person would vote for...except maybe Ganny and Ivytalk...

Most politicians start with a theory, and then use that to determine their policies. For example, candidates are routinely asked to weigh in on charter schools. Most start by stating their theoretical approach—I’m broadly in favor of or opposed to charter schools. That immediately tells voters where you stand, but it does nothing to find actual solutions. As soon as you’ve signaled which camp you belong to, both sides start yelling at each other, accomplishing nothing.

I always tried to answer questions on issues pragmatically, either: 1) I’ve seen an implementation that works and we should copy it or 2) I have yet to see an implementation that works but do you have one you could share with me? If you read a campaign 101 primer it will tell you not to do this, but I found that voters responded very strongly to this strategy. It allowed people who didn’t agree 100 percent with my viewpoints to realize that even though we weren’t entirely aligned, all ideas had a place at the table. Any idea that was provable was worth looking at, regardless of the source.....

Do I have a chance to win the race tomorrow? To be honest, it’s probably slim. It’s kind of a tragedy because everyone says they want a candidate like me, who doesn’t bow to ideology, who looks out for society instead of selling government to the highest bidder, and most of all is smart enough to handle the unknown challenges ahead. But I ran into a strategic problem I couldn’t overcome. The other two candidates are barely average. Even their supporters don’t really like them. I can’t tell you the number of times people have told me they like me better than their own party’s candidate

But the problem is, the Democrats in particular really hate the other party’s candidate. Democrats may dislike their own candidate but they are downright terrified of the Republican. They are primarily voting to keep him out of office, and that makes them unlikely to take a flier on a third-party candidate; they’d rather pick the second-best candidate than vote for me. Meanwhile, I’ve been picking up GOP support no problem because they don’t seem as afraid. That tells me that if the GOP candidate had been more adequate, I’d have pulled this off.


Here’s the thing though: It’s a democracy. If everyone who ever said “government doesn’t work for me” comes out and votes on Tuesday, I’ll win in a landslide. Stranger things have happened. I never thought one million people would call the FCC to demand net neutrality. We overturned SOPA/PIPA almost overnight, solely because regular people, powered by the Internet, stepped up and took action. I would have said these things were impossible, and pre-Internet I’m pretty sure I would have been right about that.

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/someday-te ... ty-system/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:Well...not immediately, but hopefully.

Lessons learned from running an indy campaign. Smart dude who any reasonable person would vote for...except maybe Ganny and Ivytalk...



http://www.wired.com/2015/11/someday-te ... ty-system/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So why would I not vote for him again? He doesn't seem to be an automatic no vote and I agree with him that working to, if not end, at least loosen, the grip the two parties have on the electorate is nothing but a good thing. Even if the guy would vote for Trump.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So why would I not vote for him again? He doesn't seem to be an automatic no vote and I agree with him that working to, if not end, at least loosen, the grip the two parties have on the electorate is nothing but a good thing. Even if the guy would vote for Trump.

Most voters are dumb and lazy. They see a new candidate as someone that won't be able to work the system (and to a point they are right. There's a learning curve) but they also don't like the current politicians who are currently gaming the system and they refuse to vote them out. You have no room to complain if you don't try to oust a politician you don't like. It seems the Republicans are best at that.

JohnStOnge wrote:I disagreed with him as soon as I saw his first sentence. To me you have to start off with a set of principles and theories that you're going to stick to. To me you have to look at the big picture instead of knee jerking moment by moment according to what you think is "pragmatic" at the time.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I disagreed with him as soon as I saw his first sentence. To me you have to start off with a set of principles and theories that you're going to stick to. To me you have to look at the big picture instead of knee jerking moment by moment according to what you think is "pragmatic" at the time.

John, I truly appreciate your honesty here but you do realize this makes you the lowest of low information voters, right?

(CID...note this is JSO at his finest trolling)

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
John, I truly appreciate your honesty here but you do realize this makes you the lowest of low information voters, right?

(CID...note this is JSO at his finest trolling)

Here's the thing, Kalm. He starts off by saying something about not proceeding according to a theory then proceeds to lay out a theory by which he operates. And the theory is one of knee jerking around according to what seems reasonable at the moment.

I am not a low information voter at all. I'm somebody who realizes that what he says looks cool on the surface but when you really look at it closely it's pretty vacant.

Ivytalk wrote:Well, Klam, you can wish in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which fills up first.

A pouty millennial professional blogger runs for governor with his wife as his running mate, gets about 3% of the vote, and posts a lengthy, self-righteous screed about how the social media will change the system.

Guess what? The major parties have already discovered the social media and co-opted it. The Democrats are actually using it very well. Demise of the two-party system? Hardly.

Nice troll, by the way! And long live Citizens United. Money=speech=power!

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Well, Klam, you can wish in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which fills up first.

A pouty millennial professional blogger runs for governor with his wife as his running mate, gets about 3% of the vote, and posts a lengthy, self-righteous screed about how the social media will change the system.

Guess what? The major parties have already discovered the social media and co-opted it. The Democrats are actually using it very well. Demise of the two-party system? Hardly.

Nice troll, by the way! And long live Citizens United. Money=speech=power!

Thatta boy!!!

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Thatta boy!!!

The Holy Apostle Bill!

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
The Holy Apostle Bill!

One of my all time favorite political quotes is the bit about standing athwart history and yelling stop!



I think of my friend Ivy every time I see that one.

Ivytalk wrote:Well, Klam, you can wish in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which fills up first.

A pouty millennial professional blogger runs for governor with his wife as his running mate, gets about 3% of the vote, and posts a lengthy, self-righteous screed about how the social media will change the system.

Guess what? The major parties have already discovered the social media and co-opted it. The Democrats are actually using it very well. Demise of the two-party system? Hardly.

Nice troll, by the way! And long live Citizens United. Money=speech=power!

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
One of my all time favorite political quotes is the bit about standing athwart history and yelling stop!



I think of my friend Ivy every time I see that one.

You...you...you mean you can't stop history??

Ibanez wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: You...you...you mean you can't stop history??

No more than you can stop Kevin Bacon from dancing!!

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: No more than you can stop Kevin Bacon from dancing!!

And why would anyone want to stop that? You weren't rooting for Chuck Cranston in the film, were you?