|
Willa Rogers posted:I knew that perez had weaksauced the unity reform commission's proposal for superdelegates, but this twist is new to me: I read that to mean that they're bound on the first ballot, so in practice that just means the state would declare their vote along with the rest of their delegates on the first round. Sounds really similar to what we've heard before to me. Like this quote implies they wouldn't have control over their "vote" during the first round at all: quote:As the latest proposal stands, superdelegates in such an instance would be apportioned along with the pledged delegates to reflect that primary and caucus voting. If that still left no candidate with a majority, superdelegates then would be free to vote however they pleased on subsequent ballots. edit: if Mulholland doesn't like it, it is probably a good idea quote:In February 2017, Mulholland was a vocal opponent of a resolution at the DNC which would have banned donations from Corporate Political action committees to the DNC. This ban was first imposed by presidential nominee Barack Obama in 2008, but was removed by then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in 2016.[15] Mulholland also opposed the nomination Keith Ellison as DNC chairman, calling him a "tax cheat", and thus unqualified for this position. Mulholland was referring to an unpaid traffic ticket which lead to Ellison's drivers licence being suspended in 2006.[6] Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Aug 22, 2018 |
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
I think the AP article is wrong. I've found multple stories that say the same thing as this politico story: "The proposal, passed overwhelmingly by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, would prohibit superdelegates from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot at a contested national convention. "
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Nothus posted:I think the AP article is wrong. I've found multple stories that say the same thing as this politico story: I think those can both be correct. In a contested convention they can be banned from voting during the first round, but during an uncontested convention their votes would be thrown in with proportional totals along with the regular delegates that each state vote in their stupid ceremony. So if State A has 10 normal delegates and 6 superdelegates and the primary vote was split 50/50 for Cuomo/Oprah then each would get 8 votes during the big fancy roll call leading towards Oprah's victory in an uncontested convention. In a contested convention they'd only get 5 votes each on the first round and then the supers could do their will after that. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:So I hear a lot of liberals being against a $15 minimum wage because in rural areas and I guess poorer areas, making 15 is a lot of money compared to cities. But if people are being paid more money, doesn’t that more people have more money to spend on things which strengthens the economy? I’m dumb when it comes to that kind of stuff. Keep in mind that Washington State passed a 13.50 minimum wage law. Nobody has been badly affected. The rural impact is a myth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
 God, just get rid of superdelegates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Nothus posted:
Thats not really the goal, though. All most of us really want is for the superdelegates to not have the ability to tilt the nomination towards a candidate that the other delegates don't want. I don't have a problem with flying the superdelegates in to enjoy the celebration and vote on the party platform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Nothus posted:
but what if the proles select another loser like...oh...wait...poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Thats not really the goal, though. All most of us really want is for the superdelegates to not have the ability to tilt the nomination towards a candidate that the other delegates don't want. I don't have a problem with flying the superdelegates in to enjoy the celebration and vote on the party platform. ? why would you want them to vote on the platform?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Who are the deep pools of progressive talent poised to win the national election in Bernie's stead? A month ago, I would have answered "Keith Ellison" to this question. Maybe a month from now, he'll be the answer again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:? why would you want them to vote on the platform? because they're the ones who need to implement it, and was out there buy-in, the platform is pointless
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:? why would you want them to vote on the platform? I realize this is pie-in-the-sky dreaming that requires a rewrite how we do everything, but it would be a lot better if there was a mechanism for voters to directly vote on the party platform, and the politicians themselves were basically hired lawyers who were obligated to execute the whims of their clients (the party). Maybe give them a limited ability to say "hold up, I don't think this is a good idea guys" and trigger some re-votes if they feel like the masses made some horrible decision. Maybe something like a veto where the masses could come back and override it with 66% of the vote? It would stop this guessing game of having to guess if a candidate really means something or if they're just bullshitting you ("Access to affordable healthcare"). Plus it would eliminate all of this stress over "Oh Bernie/Candidate X is too old/young/whatever", it would be like swapping out the pitcher in a baseball game -- some might be better than others, but ultimately they are all tasked with executing the same job (the platform, as agreed to directly by voters). I guess I'm basically proposing (slightly checked) direct democracy, but I wonder if that isn't better in 2018 seeing how badly representative democracy is failing us. Pakistani Brad Pitt fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Sounds more like an imperative mandate system to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Democratic centralism is a good idea folks, I keep saying
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the platform is pointless
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A month ago, I would have answered "Keith Ellison" to this question. Maybe a month from now, he'll be the answer again. I highly doubt this is going to happen. I think the most obvious choice currently for a post-Bernie candidate is AOC but a year ago none of us had ever heard of her so who knows who will be up and coming two-six years from now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:because they're the ones who need to implement it, and was out there buy-in, the platform is pointless that may be true for party leaders & elected officials (ignoring that many are former officials who've become lobbyists) but the at-large supers are pretty worthless. eta: supers also include democratic governors, democratic attorneys general, representatives of the national federation of democratic women, and young democrats--so no, they won't be "implementing" the DNC national platform. also lolol: "There is no bar on lobbyists serving as DNC members (and thus superdelegates); ABC News found that about 9% of superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention (67 people in all) were former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level." Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:I realize this is pie-in-the-sky dreaming that requires a rewrite how we do everything, but it would be a lot better if there was a mechanism for voters to directly vote on the party platform, and the politicians themselves were basically hired lawyers who were obligated to execute the whims of their clients (the party). Maybe give them a limited ability to say "hold up, I don't think this is a good idea guys" and trigger some re-votes if they feel like the masses made some horrible decision. Maybe something like a veto where the masses could come back and override it with 66% of the vote? It would stop this guessing game of having to guess if a candidate really means something or if they're just bullshitting you ("Access to affordable healthcare"). You somehow confused "superdelegates" with "the entire population of Democratic voters" Rigel posted:Thats not really the goal, though. All most of us really want is for the superdelegates to not have the ability to tilt the nomination towards a candidate that the other delegates don't want. I don't have a problem with flying the superdelegates in to enjoy the celebration and vote on the party platform. Condiv posted:? why would you want them to vote on the platform?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Democratic centralism is a good idea folks, I keep saying I'm spitballing here.  You'd probably need a parliamentary system to go with it anyways since 85% of the party members would bail when they had to *actually* whims of the populace instead of just paying it lipservice enough to get elected.WampaLord posted:You somehow confused "superdelegates" with "the entire population of Democratic voters" Nah I just latched onto to the word 'platform' and started an unrelated conversation. I'm just frustrated because I feel like the Democratic party often has a lot of great ideas in their platform but the ultimately elected candidates don't work to execute it in good faith (in my opinion, 90% of the time). Like, here is what my state Democratic party platform is in the 'Healthcare' section: "We Support Universal Coverage We support health care for all, as a fundamental human right, including Medicare / Medicaid for all. This program should be independent of employment and prioritize the health of Coloradans." It got unanimous raised hands at my caucus. I don't have any faith in my national level representatives actually introducing legislation to make this happen. Sure some of them say they'd vote for it, but none of them will introduce it. They are only saying it because they know they won't have be tested. When we put it on the state ballot as an ballot initiative, they overwhelmingly came out against it. I don't feel represented. I'll see myself out now. (of your previous conversation about superdelegates) Pakistani Brad Pitt fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1032400527831773184
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Good* *not actual socialism but whatever gently caress olds
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
If we're talking about solutions w/r/t corruption via lobbyists you need to dramatically expand what classifies as "lobbying" and do something about in-kind donations. As it is currently, if you're arranging dinners and galas and inviting dems, as long as you don't actually donate anything to them you aren't lobbying. You also have outside lobbying, which completely ignores elected officials and instead whips up support for a topic through advertisements / outreach to the voterbase in a community in order to influence a representative that way. That is also technically not lobbying, and is generally covered via PACs and superPACs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I highly doubt this is going to happen. would AOC even be old enough in six years
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:would AOC even be old enough in six years I think barely, yeah. vvv That's true, I didn't consider filing and what have you, though I'd imagine it's a "as long as you're the age by the time you'd take office" sort of thing. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
i'm not being snarky im just not sure also when specifically you need to be 35. filing? election? inauguration?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:would AOC even be old enough in six years I think it depends on when in the year her birthday is. I meant more so in the sense of being a symbolic leader of the left tho and not specifically as a presidential candidate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:I realize this is pie-in-the-sky dreaming that requires a rewrite how we do everything, but it would be a lot better if there was a mechanism for voters to directly vote on the party platform, and the politicians themselves were basically hired lawyers who were obligated to execute the whims of their clients (the party). Maybe give them a limited ability to say "hold up, I don't think this is a good idea guys" and trigger some re-votes if they feel like the masses made some horrible decision. Maybe something like a veto where the masses could come back and override it with 66% of the vote? It would stop this guessing game of having to guess if a candidate really means something or if they're just bullshitting you ("Access to affordable healthcare"). Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:I'm spitballing here. But we are trying! Obamacare was all we could get, those gosh darn Republicans wouldn't let us get more! Good faith or no, the problem with your suggestion is that the guys that were elected can still do what they want and creatively interpret things. The mechanism to stop that is already in place: vote them out. It's not very effective... There isn't really a way to force someone to act in good faith, that is the intractible and unsolvable problem as long as money buys people and elections. I think Schumer THINKS he IS acting in good faith to push the ideas his voters want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Also if Bernie wins the primary you're going to get a Democratic Ross Perot - some dipshit third way businessperson who siphons off enough votes for him to realistically lose (as opposed to now, where every poll shows him kicking Trump's teeth in) the sooner the democratic party goes the way of the whigs, the better
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Also if Bernie wins the primary you're going to get a Democratic Ross Perot - some dipshit third way businessperson who siphons off enough votes for him to realistically lose (as opposed to now, where every poll shows him kicking Trump's teeth in) Wasn't Bloomberg threatening to do this? I have a feeling that it's more likely the third way third party is a total embarrassing failure that gets votes from lanyards and nobody else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:i'm not being snarky im just not sure inauguration
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A month ago, I would have answered "Keith Ellison" to this question. Maybe a month from now, he'll be the answer again. So it doesn't look like the progressive bench is deeper than the right wing one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I highly doubt this is going to happen. JFC, AOC has not even been to Congress yet. Is hailing her as the second most senior member of a movement supposed to inspire confidence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:JFC, AOC has not even been to Congress yet. Is hailing her as the second most senior member of a movement supposed to inspire confidence? More like despair, because no Democrat over 30 is apparently smart/honest enough to tell the truth about anything. The fact that she's better than every other Democrat combined is an indictment of the party, but it's still hope for the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Michael_Kan/status/1032480832945049600
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
and that third party was RUSSIA
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
The Russia poo poo may be real, but they make it very hard to actually believe it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:inauguration Many states will prohibit you from filing if you're not eligible, and it would just end up being lawsuits all over the place as to how that's interpreted for someone who turns 35 a month before the election but not when they file.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
Nothus posted:The Russia poo poo may be real, but they make it very hard to actually believe it. That sounds like an inexperienced but really super enthusiastic IT staffer talking his boss into something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:JFC, AOC has not even been to Congress yet. Is hailing her as the second most senior member of a movement supposed to inspire confidence? No? But my point was that who knows who will be significant 2-6 years from now so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So it doesn't look like the progressive bench is deeper than the right wing one. It takes time to build a movement from almost nothing. It's nice that the left is suddenly popular, but the fact that it's been barely-existent for the last couple decades means it has to spend time building up a presidential-level bench. Unlike Congress, where the left can build up its influence by taking more seats every year, the presidency is more difficult to aim for early on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/1032623228303355904 can't wait for dems to start screaming at the top of their lungs that we gotta fight climate change to defend our petrochem businesses
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 19:46
|
|