Conventions are dumb! by NewOldBrownCoat

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Conventions are dumb!

POSTED BY: NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 06:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 844
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 27, 2012 7:04 AM

Saw a piece on this somewhere over the weekend, and, boy, I wish I could find it again to post the link. But I'll state it as my idea, and opinion.

Political nominating conventions are a dumb waste of time. I watched in 1968, on the edge of adulthood, and saw Hubert Humphrey nominated in Chicago, while young anti-war people rioted and were gassed and beaten in the streets. Nothing important has happened at one since.

They accomplish three things: they nominate a President, officially. But Obama is unopposed among the Dems, and Romney has had the delegate count locked up for months. The Primaries do the actual nominating, anyway. They write a platform, which the candidate is supposed to run on. It's meaningless, full of sops to special interests and battleground states: nobody is going to read it or pay any attention to it, or actually campaign on it. There may or may not be a fight about including certain issues, or certain positions, but none of it really matters. And they nominate a Vice President. Romney has already given away Ryan, and Biden goes with Obama. A change would be real news, but ain't gonna happen now-a-days. Last time there was a serious difference of opinion it was Ford or Bush in 1980. And besides, the parties now give the Presidential candidate whoever he wants.

SO nothing important is gonna happen at either one in 2012.

Instead, they are both managed PR events, full of speeches that set the tone and show off the candidates and how popular he is, and pre-planned "spontaneous" demonstrations.

And they serve as a big party, with lots of food, drink and hookers for the already connected. And maybe a little togetherness and shoulder rubbing for influential backers, money sources, and representatives of thought-to-be-important splinter groups that might bring in a few votes in November.

And they pump a bunch of dollars into the convention city, which will make it, maybe, grateful in November, maybe help carry that state, which might be a battleground, or at least close. and money to airline fares, and TV commercial time.

So, let's cancel the damn things. I certainly ain't gonna watch either one. There'll be enough coverage and commentary to discuss anything actually passes as newsworthy that happens at either one, or any serious gaffe that might become a defining issue down the road.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 27, 2012 8:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Kind of agree.

The only problem with doing away with the conventions is that there'd be that much more money with which to run political ads. Not sure I could stand that around here, where half the ads are political already.

What might be more fun would be to do away with the primaries, and let people realize that the same candidates would probably be selected in the back rooms as by the primary votes.

BTW, looking at my TV listings for this week, the only folks with much live coverage of the Republican convention seems to be PBS and C-Span. The networks will probably have some during the news, and maybe a condensed one hour version late, and the all-news cable and streaming media will have some.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree, NewOld, and it's shown this year with so many not bothering to attend on either side. It's a dog-and-pony show, but given we get nothing but dog-and-pony shows all year in an election year, I don't see why anyone needs more of them. But they'll never stop holding them; they excite the base, are an excuse to party, and usually give the candidate a bit of a bump in the polls. Works for them!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE