|
Concerned Citizen posted:this seems like a policy specifically aimed at black voters? why? What do you mean?
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
tread incredibly lightly on primary reform talk. it's not a bad thing to talk about but it has a long history of being closely tied to primary salt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What do you mean? how else to interpret it? march 1 and march 15 contained basically all the southern states. the only other major demographic primary i can think of was the new england bloc in april/may, and i would argue strongly against breaking those up since it would disadvantage candidates with less money due to overlapping media markets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:why does this forum have so many rhode islanders, it's weird Handwringing over counterproductive Dem party rules in major metropolitan areas is our eternal penance for cold pizza strips 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:go watch interviews of her when she isn't running for something. 2008-2012. She comes off amazing. Snappy and affable, just a little goofy in a mom way, just really endearing. I don't know if it's the focus grouping yes men that tell her to act that way or if half a century of bullshit scandals have just made it so that she ices over when she faces any kind of question that might go badly for her, but she can't do it while she's under any kind of scrutiny. We came, we saw, he died! lol nice one mom
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
drat, Coates get it to a tee. Especially if you read the entire posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted:Handwringing over counterproductive Dem party rules in major metropolitan areas is our eternal penance for cold pizza strips your state deserves only pain and suffering for your affront to the decency of food
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
I don't understand how Iowa manages to hold on to its starting position in the primary cycle, seeing how literally every other state and territorial delegation at the DNC has a vested interest in destroying that advantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I don't understand how Iowa manages to hold on to its starting position in the primary cycle, seeing how literally every other state and territorial delegation at the DNC has a vested interest in destroying that advantage. iirc theres an iowa state law saying they have to be first
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Iowa has a law or something that states that it has to be first, and no candidate is going to say gently caress you to Iowa since that's where all the attention will be for months
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I don't understand how Iowa manages to hold on to its starting position in the primary cycle, seeing how literally every other state and territorial delegation at the DNC has a vested interest in destroying that advantage. 1. because both iowa and nh are swing states and no one wants to piss them off 2. because obama won iowa and didn't want to change it 3. because progressives wanted to keep it there as the caucus tends to lean to the left 4. institutional inertia
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Most if not all the candidates who skip Iowa always lose the primary eventually and the narrative immediately is that their appeal is very limited.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Seriously though Ronzio's is awful Bob & Timmy's though   
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:iirc theres an iowa state law saying they have to be first There is, but it's not as though they can actually control the election scheduling decisions of a private organization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Zoran posted:There is, but it's not as though they can actually control the election scheduling decisions of a private organization. Iowans love being first and taking it away from them is a great way of losing them in November.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:Iowans love being first and taking it away from them is a great way of losing them in November. Because if there's one thing we've learned about general elections, it's that voters really care a whole lot about procedural issues?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Because if there's one thing we've learned about general elections, it's that voters really care a whole lot about procedural issues? iowans really, really care about going first. it's all they have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
have you guys considered the fact that keith ellison is [checks notes[ good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:have you guys considered the fact that keith ellison is ma'am this an arby's bathroom
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
The law says that have to be first, so if we can make sure that didn't happen all of Iowa gets arrested and goes to jail and can't vote anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:iowans really, really care about going first. it's all they have. I understand this argument, but I really think you guys are overstating the impact this would have. If the change was made three years out from a presidential election, like in 2017, there would probably be a few weeks of controversy before everyone shrugs and forgets about it. Alas, this hypothesis won't get tested any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Iowa only has hotels because they need them every four years
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Zoran posted:There is, but it's not as though they can actually control the election scheduling decisions of a private organization. Each state party controls when its primary contest is scheduled and IA and NH have said they'll push it back until they're first. NH almost went into December in 2011/12. But I do expect Nevada to get booted out of the carve out states next cycle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I understand this argument, but I really think you guys are overstating the impact this would have. If the change was made three years out from a presidential election, like in 2017, there would probably be a few weeks of controversy before everyone shrugs and forgets about it. it doesn't really work that way. the states get to pick their primary dates. the dnc gets to decide how many delegates they elect. they can strip a state of delegates/penalize them, but can't make them hold a primary on a different date. if iowa decides they're going first, they will be set for a showdown at the DNC/RNC challenging for their delegates to get counted. it's like florida in 2008, which was a big debacle. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 19:23 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
2032 democratic primary: the Iowa primary is scheduled for January 2029
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it doesn't really work that way. the states get to pick their primary dates. the dnc gets to decide how many delegates they are worth. if iowa decides they're going first, they will be set for a showdown at the DNC/RNC challenging for their delegates to get counted. it's like florida in 2008. Yes, and I'm saying the national party could exploit this setup by (semi-randomly) picking a schedule and punishing states that break it by reducing their representation. I say "semi-randomly" because I think an ideal system would have something like 1 primary in this first week, 2 the next week, then 3, and so on, but you wouldn't want random chance to give all the early primaries exclusively to northeastern states, so you might divide all the states into regional pools first. Zoran has issued a correction as of 19:28 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:As the kids say, this thread: Call me insane, but I feel that America has to move more toward "anarchy". I mean that in terms of having participatory budgeting, planning, and push for cooperatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Pissing off all your state parties for little gain seems like a bad idea, but I'm no organizing expert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Pissing off all your state parties for little gain seems like a bad idea, but I'm no organizing expert. It just seems to me that most of the states that don't already have early carve-out exemptions would be happy to shake things up and give themselves a chance at an early spot, simply because that serves their own interests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
jamelle bouie weighing in with the "actually it was just racism" take
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:jamelle bouie weighing in with the "actually it was just racism" take found this series within that stoller tweet storm linked earlier, seems relevant https://twitter.com/TheBpDShow/status/805067654641938433
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I am honestly not convinced there are serious flaws with the primary system as it stands right now, and certainly that would be fixed by standardization. Also caucuses are the best
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also caucuses are the best is that ironic
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also caucuses are the best Caucuses are great because they're run by the parties, not the states, so the party can make the rules to their advantage by allowing same-day registration, which grows the party and encourages participation. They're also helpful for recruiting volunteers. That said, the way the Democrats run their caucuses is stupid. Not everyone can or wants to spend hours shifting into group pods and having rough headcounts to narrow down the caucus field. The party should adopt the system that Rand Paul introduced in Kentucky this year for his vanity campaign: the state party staffed caucus precincts most of the day and anyone could show up and vote on a secret ballot, which was tallied to decide on delegates. Later in the day, the precincts held organizing meetings for those who wanted to participate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Rand Paul... had a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Direct quote is, "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out business." Looking back on Clinton's campaign as a campaign that's ultimately saying all the wrong things and loving up, it really makes it clear the mantra of "poor white idiots are tricked into voting GOP against their own interests" is totally bullshit, the GOP is totally in many of their best interests. Yes, Trump's not going to bring back coal unless America or Europe suddenly overhaul their energy needs for no other reason other than just so they can burn more coal. But even if it's not really going to happen, just having a candidate who's saying "I'm bringing coal, steel, factory work, etc back to America" is already way more in their interest than a candidate going "lol if you're somehow still a coal miner in 2016, you're gonna get so hosed, praise NAFTA and TPP". And sure, the $15 minimum wage is nice, being less hostile to unions than the other guy is cool, but neither of those helps if a) you don't already have a job and b) your union isn't already dead or useless like almost every other union in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Isn't this an oxymoron? How can you be "pro-israel" without being partisan? Until fairly recently, support for Israel was a bipartisan thing that both parties overwhelmingly favored, so groups like AIPAC and the ADL pointedly avoided any appearance of favoring one party over the other, for fear that tying themselves to one party would turn the other party against them and hurt their general credibility. Trump threw that carefully calculated strategy into utter disarray, and they've been struggling with scandals ever since. For instance, AIPAC hasn't uttered a peep about Trump since March, when there was so much outrage at his AIPAC speech that they actually apologized for letting him give it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:it helps that it might be dawning on the DNC that maybe their "knob slobber wall street" strategy is well beyond the point of diminishing returns
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Looking back on Clinton's campaign as a campaign that's ultimately saying all the wrong things and loving up, it really makes it clear the mantra of "poor white idiots are tricked into voting GOP against their own interests" is totally bullshit, the GOP is totally in many of their best interests. Yes, Trump's not going to bring back coal unless America or Europe suddenly overhaul their energy needs for no other reason other than just so they can burn more coal. But even if it's not really going to happen, just having a candidate who's saying "I'm bringing coal, steel, factory work, etc back to America" is already way more in their interest than a candidate going "lol if you're somehow still a coal miner in 2016, you're gonna get so hosed, praise NAFTA and TPP". And sure, the $15 minimum wage is nice, being less hostile to unions than the other guy is cool, but neither of those helps if a) you don't already have a job and b) your union isn't already dead or useless like almost every other union in America. to be fair, hillary was actually talking about her plans to help coal miners losing their jobs as the nation's energy profile changes. but that one sentence became the entire media story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:We came, we saw, he died! https://williamblum.org/aer/read/147
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:59
|
|