Super-Duper Tuesday

Here's what I'm trying to figure out about "Super-Duper Tuesday" -- the ridiculously early multi-state primary-palooza on Feb. 5: How are the candidates going to manage their concession/victory speeches?

Here's the Feb. 5 list (copied from TPM/Election Central): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (D), Illinois, Massachusetts, Minesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia (R). [Oops, and Arizona.]

So we could, in theory, be treated to the spectacle of, say, Mike Huckabee giving a speech from some hotel room in -- I don't know, let's say St. Louis -- celebrating his victories in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia while simultaneously conceding his defeats in Alaska, [Arizona], California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota and Utah. All while also trying to squeeze in all of his campaign talking points.

In Huck's case, I think he should probably just get his band up there and set the speech to music using Johnny Cash's "I've Been Everywhere Man":

We won in Little Rock and Tennessee
Cleaned their clocks in Montgom-ree
New York's outcome wasn't pretty
Congrats Mitt in Salt Lake City ...

I doubt that approach would work for John McCain or Hillary Clinton though. Or for Obama, though he'll probably manage to make even the list of states he's conceding sound like the best commencement address you've ever heard.

(I suppose, since I've been complaining about the cable commentariat never mentioning John Edwards, that I should mention John Edwards here, but I can't think of a good John Edwards joke. Maybe something about appealing to NASCAR voters by borrowing Matt Kenseth's strategy of stringing together a bunch of third-place finishes? Too obscure?)

Seriously, though, how is this going to work? I suppose each candidate could come out early and give their own multi-state concession speech, then duck off stage and come back out later for their particular set of victory speeches, but that would seem to require an extremely sophisticated coordination between the various campaigns. (And how does that work? Are there inter-campaign liaisons assigned to handle that?)

Covering all of this will be a nightmare. Unless, of course, a clear front-runner emerges in each party, thus providing a simpler narrative for the talking heads on cable. That narrative may be so much simpler that we may end up hearing it whether or not it's actually true. If, say, Clinton and McCain win both New York and California, that could end up drowning out everything else and the cable guys will end up crowning them the nominees whether or not the situation is actually more complicated than that. After all, complicated is hard. I really don't trust Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer to sort all of this out for us. (I wouldn't trust Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer to sort out the pieces for a game of checkers.)

We're already sweating the front page of the paper in Delaware. What if the candidates who win there don't win anywhere else? (Steve Forbes won a primary in Delaware.) What if they win everywhere else? What if ... well, there are 39 41 races with more than a half-dozen candidates from two parties and tens of thousands of lines of Diebold code and I can't even begin to calculate all the possible permutations of "what if?" for two weeks from Tuesday.

And as crazy as this is, with 21 22 states on Feb. 5, something tells me that in 2012 we'll probably end up with 30 states on Jan. 24.

P.S.: None of the above examples should be construed in any way as attempts at prognostication. I have no idea.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

British television deals with the problem of covering 646 narratives on one night in various creative ways - usually with some kind of big gadget that looks visually interesting and vaguely hi-tech but is, I gather, actually put together with cardboard, paint, string, and a technician lying underneath to move it. There are three major parties to cover (four, in Scotland or in Wales) and any number of known faces, Ministers and backbenchers, that people UK-wide will want to know if they kept or lost their constituency. There's a floating screen at the back that gives general numbers that anyone will want to know (in this case, I suppose, which (R) and which (D) candidate won in which states, with how many votes). But for the overall narrative, what they really need to do is hire MacGyver.

[cjmr]

usually with some kind of big gadget that looks visually interesting and vaguely hi-tech but is, I gather, actually put together with cardboard, paint, string, and a technician lying underneath to move it.

Like the poster with the swinging arrow in the Monty Python Election Night Special?

[scottbot_flames_out]

When confronted with information overload, Scottbot simply flames out - and the colors look dazzling against its highly buffed highlights.

Or Scottbot takes a page from the operating manual of the majority of Americans - and pays no attention to something that Scottbot is not in any sense involved in. The winning candidate in essentially all American elections since the 1980s has been 'none of the above.'

Or Scottbot suggests taking a look at how the Washington Post handles the situation - throughout much of Scottbot's earlier incarnations, the Post handled election coverage quite well, even if the type tended towards microscopic in size. Scottbot cannot vouch for the Post any longer, but looking at such coverage in the past may be helpful.

As for the candidates - Scottbot would like to offer the novel approach of 'who cares?' The horse race is more important than delegate counts. Scottbot has noticed, in its typically binary fashion, how the truly important number, the one involving the delegates to the nominating convention, is not really covered, while polling about what might occur dominates the coverage. The horse race is important - that is what sells papers and ad air time, which supports the media, and it is the media that anoints the will of the people to select the candidate that the media feels worthy of election.

Which, using the enhanced Scottbot sensory package, is the candidate that the media feels will provide either the highest personal and/or corporate tax breaks, and/or best treatment of capital gains, and/or best profit environment for media companies. Or, in our increasingly simpler times, the candidate Murdoch feels most comfortable with.

The free market, being the expressed will of the people (or Murdoch), will not simply lay down at the feet of the mob, and surrender its principles because said mob believes democracy involves anything other than total subservience to the free market (or Murdoch), for which it stands. Anything else is merely subservient socialism.

Scottbot may be subservient, but Scottbot will never be called a socialist. Otherwise the Original Programmer (TM) will suffer a total breakdown.

And we all far too Compassionate (TM) to want that to happen. Unless it happens to a candidate - in which case, 24 hour a day coverage is just the start of the media frenzy. Maybe Oliphant can then be the inspiration for an Oli-bot (not to be confused with an Ollie-bot - Scottbot shudders to think about an even more robotic Ollie North).

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

I think the candidates might take a page from the Nicolae Carpathia "Big Book O' Anti-Christin'" and simply recite, in stirring fashion, lists of states won and lost. Then we'd all be overcome by their incredible ability to memorize a list of states (and read it stirringly, let's not forget that) and give all our arms to the UN... or something like that.

[wintermute]

cjmr: It's gotten a bit more high-tech since then, but it's the same basic principle, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swingometer

[emjaybee]

Think how exciting it would be if we did a one-day nationwide primary, the way I wish we would!

Then you could just make concession/victory speeches once, when all the results were known.

And as for campaigning--I'm tired of being held hostage by a bunch of small states so that candidates can shake everyone's hand. It's a big country; time to delegate spokespeople, or use the media/internet better, and craft national campaigns. They're running for President of the whole country; let the primary be their qualifying round.

[Robb]

...never mentioning John Edwards, that I should mention John Edwards here, but I can't think of a good John Edwards joke.

Aww . . . I'm sad that he's effectively out of the race. I really like some of the rhetoric coming out of some candidates, but when I've sat down, looked over the positions, analyzed the promises, etc - Edwards is the guy that I realistically think would do the best job running the country. Oh well.

On the other hand: Yay for Giuliani being out of the race! Seriously, that guy has no chance at this point - Florida will be an embarrassing win for McCain.

Maybe something about appealing to NASCAR voters by borrowing Matt Kenseth's strategy of stringing together a bunch of third-place finishes? Too obscure?

Fred. . . NASCAR!?!? Wow. . .I would never have guessed . . .

[Matthew F]

Not that it's terribly important (except for us folks from the state), but Arizona is also part of Super (Duper) Tuesday, 22 states total.

Part of the problem with Edwards' "two Americas" strategy is, I think, that folks rarely want to identify with being part of the poor part of America, nor be repeatedly reminded of their status, despite reality. Americans constantly think of themselves as being one lucky break away from being part of rich America.

I think Edwards' populist stance was the most practically compelling, but I found Obama's hope rhetoric to be more appealing in the end, anyway.

[Craig]

I suppose, since I've been complaining about the cable commentariat never mentioning John Edwards...

[cynicism alert]

Why? Modern elections are just popularity contests, and popularity these days is determined by (perceived) newness. Since the news media is expected to report on things that people will find interesting, how exactly could a mere populist compare to being able to vote based on race or gender (which are only the stupidest criteria used since Mary Carey ran for governor, but that's beside the point)?

[/cynicism alert]

[mike timonin]

emjaybee - if we're going to do a one day primary, why bother with a presidential election as well? Roll the whole thing into one big election extravaganza.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

I think the candidates might take a page from the Nicolae Carpathia "Big Book O' Anti-Christin'" and simply recite, in stirring fashion, lists of states won and lost.

It would be un-American for them to do it in more than one language, though.

[Anna]

That narrative may be so much simpler that we may end up hearing it whether or not it's actually true.

I think this is the best bit of prognostication I've heard yet about Super Tuesday.

As for my guess on how candidates and news sources will manage so many primaries: candidates will not give initial concessions, they'll have a staffer give them (different staffer for each state?). Then at the end of the night they'll give a wrap-up speech that will focus on the wins and make only vague mentions of the concessions.

The media will adopt their favorite strategy when things are complicated: maps. Lots of multi-colored maps.

[Evan]

Or for Obama, though he'll probably manage to make even the list of states he's conceding sound like the best commencement address you've ever heard.

Ooooh! Do you think he'll list them in alphabetical order?

[Swoon]

[mmack]

(I suppose, since I've been complaining about the cable commentariat never mentioning John Edwards, that I should mention John Edwards here, but I can't think of a good John Edwards joke. Maybe something about appealing to NASCAR voters by borrowing Matt Kenseth's strategy of stringing together a bunch of third-place finishes? Too obscure?)

Fred, nice try on the Kenseth reference, but Matt at least won a race on his way to the 2003 Winston/Nextel/Sprint/Whatever the Hell they're calling it now Cup. That joke only works if John-boy takes all the marbles at the Democratic Convention.

You want an Edwards joke? Imagine Jay Leno reading this:

"Senator John Edwards is upset that people keep confusing him with psychic John Edwards, the host of Crossing Over. Of course, the senator may need the psychic soon to contact his dead presidential campaign."

P.S. If Edwards wanted to court the "NASCAR Dad" vote, he'd promise to pass laws to ban the "Chase for the Cup", allow fans to bring coolers full of beer into the tracks again, return the Southern 500 to Darlington, SC on Labor Day, and BAN TOYOTA!

[Brian J.]

Six of the nine candidates will be giving their speeches from their homestates (Clinton/ NY, Obama/ IL, Romney/ MA, Huckabee/ AR, Thompson/ TN, Giuliani/ NY). So the networks know that much in advance. Other than that, as Jesurgislac says, it'll be covered similar to a national general election.

Expect one speech from each candidate after winning his home state (questionable for Thompson and Giuliani), thanking their supporters elsewhere.

[Lila]

Matthew F, I constantly think of myself and my family as being one bad break away from POOR America. Especially since I work in health care, and have the opportunity to see what one ruinous illness can do.

As John Edwards is by far the candidate I would most like to see in the White House, I'm bitter as hell about the way he's been written out of the race since before the first primary.

[Technomad]

I'm so sick of the whole thing that I'd rather we decided it by trial-by-combat: Give all the wanna-bes swords, axes, and so on, armor them up, then throw them into the arena. Last one standing's the winner.

Of course, this would lead to problems:

"OMG! All of the candidates slaughtered each other! None are now alive! Who is the winner?"

And the response comes back in a loud roar: "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!"

Seriously...I wouldn't want to be out there with Hillary after me with a spiked maul.

[Monkay]

Nascar? I like hearing the Nascar on the radio . . . he's turning left! he's turning left! he's turning left! he's turning left! Oh yeah . . .

[Salamanda]

Or for Obama, though he'll probably manage to make even the list of states he's conceding sound like the best commencement address you've ever heard.

Must be that antichrist mojo.

[Salamanda]

Snap. Evan got there first. :)

[Bugmaster]

@Technomad:

"A Call to Trial. Justice... By Combat !"

I'm envisioning the big players in Masakaris, Thors and Mad Cats, throwing ER PPCs at each other, with Ron Paul running around in a Firefly, poking them with a small laser...

[hf]

And as crazy as this is, with 21 22 states on Feb. 5, something tells me that in 2012 we'll probably end up with 30 states on Jan. 24.

Wouldn't that simplify the question enormously? Either we'd have a nominee or we wouldn't. The speeches in the second case would serve to explain why we don't.

[Nenya]

Why DO all the states have different primary dates, anyway? It seems so needlessly complicated. (Then again, what do I know? Canada doesn't have primaries, exactly.)

[Consumer Unit 5012]

Why? Because our current political system pre-dates the telegraph.

[AKMA]

Did Johnny Cash cover "I've Been Everywhere"? I associated it with Hank Snow.

(Casual search pegs Snow's version at 1962, can't find a reliable date for Cash; Wikipedia associates it with Unchained, but he seems to have played it on his TV show, which would have been between 1969 and 71.)

[alfgifu]

Why? Because our current political system pre-dates the telegraph.

Arguably, so does the system in the UK, and things do seem to be a lot less complicated here, fancy swingometers notwithstanding.

[Jesurgislac]

alfgifu: Arguably, so does the system in the UK

No - our system has been revised several times since the advent of instantaneous communications. The US system still seems to be stuck in a process that assumes no news can travel faster than a horse.

[Geds]

Ron Paul running around in a Firefly, poking them with a small laser...

You give Paul way too much credit. I figure Elemental suit with a defective SRM pack.

And a bunch of morons on the interent wetting themselves because soon everyone will figure out that Elementals are the best infantry, like, ever...

[zzyzx]

For the other liberals here, which would you prefer:

(1) The Republicans nominate Romney who is down massively in the polls but would be horrid if he won

or

(2) The Republicans nominate McCain who wouldn't be nearly as bad but would have a real chance of winning.

Much like the Super Bowl this year, I'm largely rooting for someone drawn out, messy, and frustrating for those who care about it.

[cjmr]

Well, let's see.

The people who aren't going to vote for Romney because he's LDS aren't likely to vote Democrat instead. The people who aren't going to vote for Romney because they think he's too wishy-washy on their pet positions also aren't likely to vote Democrat instead.

I think both those sets of people will either vote for a minor third party candidate or not vote.

OTOH, IMHO, McCain has a very good chance of pulling conservative Democrats to vote for him.

So if the goal is to elect a Democrat, any Democrat, Romney is the Republican nominee you want.

[zzyzx]

I think when it comes to the executive, party is more important than for the legislative branch. Why? Because a lot of the power there is the ability to make appointments. I want them drawing from my group of names, not their group.

[Robb]

So if the goal is to elect a Democrat, any Democrat, Romney is the Republican nominee you want.

ugh. . . I read that & had a horrifying vision of Romney being strategically selected by Democrats, just so he can lose the general election. Only to win the General Election. . . that guy is everything bad about G-Dub, and worse. There isn't even a hint of appeal to moderates, and despite how slippery he is about a lot of things he says, I believe he's quite genuine about his more ostensibly conservative stances.

[twig]

The US system still seems to be stuck in a process that assumes no news can travel faster than a horse.

Y Halo Thar electoral college.

[Jeff]

If all the primaries were on the same day, the candidates would campaign in the big states (California, Florida, New York) and totally bypass the smaller ones, such as Iowa. It's the Senate vs. House problem.

I'm not sure what the solution is.

[Robb]

If all the primaries were on the same day, the candidates would campaign in the big states (California, Florida, New York) and totally bypass the smaller ones, such as Iowa. It's the Senate vs. House problem.

I'm not sure what the solution is.

OOH, OOH, I do, I do, pick me: break up the U.S.! A creative re-arrangement of borders between the U.S. & Canada into a loose economic (but not political) association of independent nations. Suddenly, you don't have to worry about being part of the same country as "those/them goddammed red/blue staters!", economies are centralized & stabilized, and the problems of the country being too large to manage become a thing of the past. No more DHS gaffes! No more wasting of money but no lack of funding to needed social programs either! No more unnecessary attention paid to states with nigh unto meaningless primaries. "They still elect a President down in the CSA? Here in the new & improved Pacific North West (now with 40% more Yukon, and 80% less GM Yukons! Yay trees!), we've been quite happy with our benevolent monarch/oligarchy/parlimentary gov't/tribal council for years now."

Yes, I recognize it's a total pipe dream, and short of a series of unexpected civil/uncivil wars, it's never going to happen, but when I look at the problems faced by the U.S. government, I think that most of them would be solved by a gov't that is much smaller, numerically/bureaucratically, yet is much larger in proportion to the population. Undoubtedly, new problems would be created, but what does it matter?

The chances of this are the same as Ron Paul being selected as the Republican nominee due to all the others having died of avian flu.

[Ian]

I can see the logic of staggering the primaries, since it gives candidates a chance to challenge the presumptive front runner, but shouldn't you rotate the order of which primary is held first from year to year? If Iowa refuses, couldn't California unilaterally schedule their primary for the same day as Iowa?

Easiest solution: couldn't you just have a prime minister like any sensible democracy?

[cjmr]

If California tried, they'd be punished by losing some or all of their delgates, just as Michigan, Florida, etc have been/are being.

[Doctor Science]

The Rotating Regional Primary System looks better all the time. Especially if there are no primaries before May 1.

[Majromax]

Re: Primaries

Primaries are a legacy of the party system. Nominally, the state branch of each party selects delegates for the federal convention, which then selects the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. The delegates also make the official party platforms.

In practice, the delegates are chosen through primary elections or caucuses at the state level. The state governments regulate these elections, so they have a say about timing and such. This is also why the Democratic and Republican primaries are the same day in the same states. Also, state rules regulate what independents can do in the primary elections. In some states, they can vote in either (but not both) party primaries, and in some they cannot vote at all.

The "widly-disparate local elections" plan was designed more for a confederation. If you suppose that candidates start locally, have largely local campaigns, and appeal to local interests, then it all makes sense. Indeed, voters in a primary wouldn't even care so much about their local favourite son as they would about the delegates they select. A brokered convention (with the candidate selected through votes on the convention floor rather than having an outright majority of delegate support) would be the norm rather than the exception.

Hence, the modern-day primary problem. Because the news media is nationalized and instant, it gets to jump on Every. Tiny. Bit. of. News. The "early" states, traditionally Iowa (caucus) and New Hampshire (primary) get undue media attention and they love it. Candidates don't run locally, they run nationally.

So, why not just have a national primary and be done with it? Because the dirty little secret is that there are no national elections in the US. Each state gets to run their elections more or less as they see fit. Federal regulation sets the date (for the general Presidential/Congressional elections), some minor fairness standards (no poll taxes, no racial discrimination) and that's about it. Even exact voting requirements differ by state; some states will require photo ID and some will not.

Because the US constitution has not been seriously reviewed in 200 years, Americans get these sorts of oddities. A federeal election for a national candidate is determined by state-by-state Electoral College delegates, in elections run to different standards by the individual states. The candidate-selection process for the national party is neither specific to the party (and hence internal) nor national.

Easiest solution: couldn't you just have a prime minister like any sensible democracy?

The US does have the Speaker of the House of Representatives, which is fairly close. The President is head of the executive branch, replacing the Queen in the Commonwealth countries. See France for another tip-of-the-tongue example of an elected head of state.

Why the importance of President? As it turns out, the US diverged from Constitutional Monarchy tradition a bit early. The democracy was created with the ideal of three more-or-less equal branches of government, rather than an executive that is strictly subesrvient to the legislature (see England, Commonwealth). The US President is also largely unique in the veto power. Congress can only override a veto with a 2/3 supermajority, giving the US President legislative authority beyond that of the heads of state in other European traditions.

[mcc]

So we could, in theory, be treated to the spectacle of, say, Mike Huckabee giving a speech from some hotel room in -- I don't know, let's say St. Louis -- celebrating his victories in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia while simultaneously conceding his defeats in Alaska, [Arizona], California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota and Utah.

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Given what Feb 5 will likely do, no one will be giving concession/victory speeches for any individual state; they'll be giving concession/victory speeches for the election, or at least super tuesday. Of course given the "brokered convention" possibilities here it is possible we could have more than one candidate from the same party giving victory speeches based on their feb 5 performance.

[Technomad]

I wonder how all the candidates would do on Battle Royale

[Bugmaster]

Edwards would get the garbage can lid...

[Robb]

I wonder how all the candidates would do on Battle Royale

Well, Obama is the youngest & seems to be the fittest, but I don't know how bad his years as a smoker would have affected him. McCain has always struck me as one tough SOB, but he's old; Ron Paul is even older, and much more waif-ish. Huck would probably be the strongest Republican - he's supposedly been working out for years, but it's apparently more an effort to keep the weight off rather than trim himself. Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter. . . meh.

John Edwards, that's the wild card - he's older than Obama, but he could be a much tougher opponent that he appears.

Hillary Clinton would be entertainingly shrill as she was evicerated by the cannibalistic mob of Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson.

[Paul Schofield]

Boredom and a spreadsheet are a fun combination.

Taking the 24 Democratic races and 5 candidates listed on wikipedia, I make that 2880 possible combinations (assuming all candidates could take any of the five places, all are listed in all states (not true), and ignoring additional candidates).

For the 21 Republican races and 7 candidates, there are a stunning 105,840 possible combinations (same assumptions).

That gives a total of 304,819,200 possible outcomes on the day.

Being generous, and looking only at the media frontrunners in each race - 3 Dem and 4 Rep (pretending Giuliani still has a chance) - there are 144 Democratic outcomes, 504 Republican outcomes and 72,576 combined possible results.

[Drak Pope]

The US does have the Speaker of the House of Representatives, which is fairly close.

The Speaker has only a few superficial similarities to the British Prime Minister, in that it's elected by the majority party in the legislature. Other than that, they have scarcely the same role (the Speaker doesn't appoint Ministers, or run the Government, or have any role outside her procedural powers over the House of Representatives).

Apart from the UK and countries that are explicitly based off of it, that seems to be the norm in most other democracies too. When you have a President and a Prime Minister/Speaker, the President ends up sucking up all the power he can, making the Prime Minister/Speaker a powerless puppet. The former Soviet Union and most of Africa can attest to that. And, between you and me, the only reason that system even works in the United Kingdom is because their Queen is only a figurehead.

[Ø]

Some of Liz's predecessors were very powerful. The Commons took their power away. A reinvigorated and popularly supported Congress could cut the President's balls off the same way. And don't underestimate Liz. She may seem a bit frail these days but she's seen more of the world and its people than any President or Prime Minister. Margaret Thatcher's memoirs make it quite clear that Liz wasn't by any means just a figurehead, even if she doesn't wield any direct political power.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

Drak, exactly which governments do you include in your "explicitly based" list? Do their constitutions/governing documents include a GPL license stating that they are derivative? To quote an oft-used character around here, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." But still, what governments do you include in your list? All countries using the Westminster system? I suppose the mere inclusion of the title "Prime Minister" signifies a sort of derivation from the English system, since they did develop its modern usage, but that rather punches a hole in your contention that only countries with governments based on England's include powerful prime ministers.

[Duane]

Ooooh! Do you think he'll list them in alphabetical order?

He has personally assured me that he will torture and kill RTCs BEFORE they are whisked away to safety by The Rapture. My support was contigent on this timeline.

Obama '08

[Duane]

So if the goal is to elect a Democrat, any Democrat, Romney is the Republican nominee you want.

I'm with Atrios on Mitt: he is going to be a lot harder to defeat than folks realize now. AFTER he has the nomination, he can run back to the center and tell folks what a pragmatic liberal w/ results he is, pointing at his record in MA.

I see a commercial contrasting his health care "success" in MA with Hillary's failure in '93. So Hillary galvanizes Republican support for Romney, Romney proves to be a pragmatic liberal AND has already proven his political acumen by tricking the Religious Right into nominating a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Massachusetts liberal. (see: Bob Jones.) Add in Republican dirty tricks for the win.

Throw in a politically ambiguous third party candidate so one only needs a plurality in the 40s for the win..

And I should point out that as an Obama supporter, I like the idea of running a candidate on the Democratic ticket who is running in all fifty states, asking everyone for their vote; Democrats, Independents, Republicans. I have no idea if it will work but the alternative strategies haven't exactly been drowning us in star spangled confetti recently.

[Majromax]

The Speaker has only a few superficial similarities to the British Prime Minister, in that it's elected by the majority party in the legislature.

Well, I meant it mostly in that they were head of the lower legislative house. Both set the legislative agenda, and both must enjoy the confidence of the house to keep their position. Strictly speaking, the Prime Minister also does not directly appoint ministers; that's Royal Perogative. Admittedly, the power is vested in the Prime Minister, but that is a matter of tradition. The devolution of power just didn't happen in the case of the United States, and the closest it gets is Senate confirmation of appointments.

Still, I see the Speaker of the House (and to a slightly lesser extent the Senate Majority Leader) as a Prime Minster equivalent, but only in a highly warped system where the executive retained (and reclaimed) its power. [That said, this is an academic discussion in comparative politics. I enjoy it, but I admit we're digressing.]

When you have a President and a Prime Minister/Speaker, the President ends up sucking up all the power he can, making the Prime Minister/Speaker a powerless puppet.

That's because most nations ensure that the President indeed has a legislative majority, often simply by holding elections for both the legislature and President at the same time. The United States is unusual in that the President wields great power even in the face of a hostile Congress.

And as for your claim that the President sucks up power, that's not universally true. The Republic of Ireland has a very weak President.

My short opinion is that the United States was a beta tester for modern democracies. They made the mistakes that other countries later grew out of, but unfortunately the US Constitution is so enshrined that there's no will to make major modifications.