|
CopperHound posted:Maybe this is the wrong place for this, but I've been trying to figure out if the proliferation of gender reveal parties are due to people being consously reactionary about the blurring of gender boundaries or just parents just trying to do new stupid trendy stuff?  them liberals and their 57 genders".
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
bawfuls posted:The jungle primary has probably helped bury the rump CA GOP while also entrenching establishment Dems. If a general 2-candidate race between a centrist and a left-wing challenger ends with the centrist being elected, it's not really suppressing the left in an undemocratic way. The general electorate just isn't actually left. A non jungle primary system that produces general elections between a rump party right-wing candidate and either a centrist/left-wing candidate will elect the left more since the center vs left contest is done within a more liberal group, but it's less reflective of the actual general population's views (those views just suck). Which you prefer comes down to values vs practicalities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
It’s an excuse to have a party with a “fun” gimmick. I think they’re pretty tacky but don’t give yourself politics brain and think they’re about entrenching reactionary gender politics or whatever. Sometimes it’s just a cigar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
My value is more lefties in office. However, this is Florida so I don't think we're getting many lefties no matter what system we have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Go with a jungle primary if you think the Florida general electorate would vote: - Generic Evil Republican > far-right wingnut > centrist/left [general is generic vs wingnut] - left > centrist > generic evil/wingnut [general is left vs centrist] Otherwise go with normal
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If a general 2-candidate race between a centrist and a left-wing challenger ends with the centrist being elected, it's not really suppressing the left in an undemocratic way. The general electorate just isn't actually left. The practical effects of the jungle primary are plain to see. CA is one of the safest left-leaning states in the country. Dem registration outpaces R's by a significant amount. And yet our Dem Senators & Reps are far from being the most progressive in the caucus. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Sep 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
The jungle primary is a defense of incumbency and basically makes it impossible to primary an incumbent, because in order for the incumbent to get blocked from the general ballot two opponents both have to exceed them in votes, which will almost never happen. The effect of this is usually a general election with an incumbent going up against a sacrificial lamb from the opposition party in a safe district, or the incumbent facing off against a nobody with no significant monetary backing. Would AOC have won if she had to face Crowley in a jungle primary? She trounced her opponents in the general when she had the D next to her name and no one else did, but what if her only other opponent in the general also had a D next to his name, had been in the seat forever, and had fifty times her funding?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
I saw specks of blue in the Fresno sky today for the first time in weeks. Felt good to open a drat window.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
The jungle primary exists in California only because the Republicans had entirely lost the state and were clearly never going to get it back. Implementing it in Flordia will not have the same outcomes because it is a battleground state. 99% of the time in Florida it'd still be a dem vs. a republican in general elections, and voters in the primaries would still vote for who they think could beat the leading candidate from the opposition party, rather than voting for the candidate they actually would prefer to have in office, exactly as they do now. Jungle primaries only actually matter in states that are already solidly blue or solidly red. We live in a two-party system and jungle primaries don't change that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
In a jungle primary you do have the benefit of depressing the votes of the party that doesn't get up there, and there were a number of Republican voters who went for DeLeon because they hated Feinstein (but ignore DeLeon as supposedly being even more left?). So, I'm not sure you can really say it has or hasn't been of benefit or harm in California. There's a lot to unpack, for sure, but I don't think the jungle primary is solely (or even majorly) to blame. The way I see it, the reason that California is not more lefty at the governmental level is because the people who plaster "VOTE" stickers and "RESIST" placards on stupid poo poo are often not really lefty (more center left) or they have some "strategic" (lmao I repeat myself) thing in mind. Pelosi represents San Francisco, the San Francisco that has the time and wherewithal to happily get out and vote regularly, which are more frequently the well-off socially liberal fiscally moderate/conservatives who do some occasional food bank donations. Meanwhile, the connected politicians that actually get the funds to hold state level elections often don't really care what party they are, giving soundbites and small scraps to whatever group they're a part of (i.e. Newsom) because they serve rich people interests. But, you're not going to see a good opponent to Newsom because he's the anointed rich person pseudo-left California leader in comparison to the often fragmented and occasionally bickering California Left. Even though you can get people nodding along with a far more left candidate's policies than Newsom, the issue is, who that is and how they got there and how solid their base of support is. For better or worse, the swing voters in this sense (between, say, Newsom and a theoretical lefty challenger) look to the fairly unwavering centrist support of Newsom vs. the likely "well they're not left enough on this issue..." that plagues a decent amount of lefty politics and get turned off by it. I've considered running for things like state senate or state rep since I'm to the left of the politicians that are currently there, but by running as more left (or even DSA), I would very likely get, "not left enough" from any number of lefties. Where then is the base of enthusiastic support that'd be needed to overcome the entrenched, monied, and established, moderate/centrist Dems?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
Jungle makes it so one candidate in the general is basically always either an establishment Democrat or establishment Republican, with the other filled by either the missing establishment candidate, a leftist candidate, or a far right candidate. Statewide in Florida, it will usually be establishment v establishment In California, it will sometimes be establishment v left In Wyoming, it would be establishment v far right Establishment is likely to win all of those matchups in a general election. You can argue about why. I think the most likely reason is that, even in California, it is matching the actual policy preferences of the voting population, regardless of how much we might wish otherwise. Effort is best spent changing the voting population by get-out-the-vote or changing minds. Normal primaries can result in left vs establishment R, left vs far right, establishment D vs establishment R, and establishment D vs far right. You can get left winners you wouldn't get otherwise in places that don't like Republicans, but also far right winners in places that don't like Democrats. The Florida amendment applies to state legislature, governor, and cabinet. The state-wide ones already seem balanced enough that it would do nothing; I don't know enough about local politics to guess about what it'd do to your state legislature. Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Sep 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:The jungle primary is a defense of incumbency and basically makes it impossible to primary an incumbent, because in order for the incumbent to get blocked from the general ballot two opponents both have to exceed them in votes, which will almost never happen. The effect of this is usually a general election with an incumbent going up against a sacrificial lamb from the opposition party in a safe district, or the incumbent facing off against a nobody with no significant monetary backing. yeppp all you need to know about jungle primaries is that louisiana, one of the og political corruption states, also does them
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Jungle primaries didn't make California better and they won't make Florida better either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
HelloSailorSign posted:I've considered running for things like state senate or state rep since I'm to the left of the politicians that are currently there, but by running as more left (or even DSA), I would very likely get, "not left enough" from any number of lefties. Where then is the base of enthusiastic support that'd be needed to overcome the entrenched, monied, and established, moderate/centrist Dems? I mean that's less a jungle primary problem and more a historical problem with the left in general: that they have a tendency to in-fight over ideology and purity tests about being left enough instead of coalescing into a large and powerful enough bloc to get a foothold in power. Being labeled "not left enough" by certain groups is kind of an inevitability: even if you ran the most progressive campaign you could possibly think of there would still be some people upset that you didn't include or think of their pet policy. Hell, a lot of people - myself included - felt Bernie wasn't left enough and viewed him a compromise candidate. Didn't stop me from voting for him though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Thank you for the input, everyone. I'm quite likely going to vote "no." I was leaning that way because I simply don't like the idea, but I wanted to hear the experiences of people who are actually operating under such a system. It sounds pretty negative. I also reached out to a local DSA chapter for their thoughts. I'm gonna sleep on it (also because I can't get my scanner to work which I need to actually cast the ballot so)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:*Monkey paw curls* Flooding will now begin. Feeling like I played a part in RBG’s death, I’m so sorry
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Lol small earthquake in SoCal. Probably low 5s? Because of course. Edit: 4.6 FlapYoJacks fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Sep 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
Edvard Munch posted:I was walking along the road with two friends – the sun was setting – suddenly the sky turned blood red – I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence – there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city – my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety – and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature.  Too cheesy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Hiya friends, I just got my cal ballot voting guide. Want to be sure these choices on propositions make AOC and Bernie smile upon me! Prop 14: ? - I would lean yes but seems iffy? Prop 15: Yes - School is cool Prop 16: Yes - Diversity education is cooler Prop 17: Yes - Restores voting rights to ex cons. Prop 18: Yes - Youth vote rights. Hilariously dumb No argument. Prop 19: Yes - Personally not sure, but vast majority of dems voted yes on this. Prop 20: No - ACLU endorsement, plus the yes argument was clearly written by someone who knows how to make boomers scared. Prop 21: Yes- Support from Bernie and the dems. Prop 22: No -Give full time rideshare/delivery drivers benefits. Plus, all the yes ads are funded by uber/lyft/et al. Prop 23: Yes maybe? - Not seeing any snakes in the grass yet. Prop 24: No - misleading. Endorsed by ACLU. Prop 25: Yes - discrimination against poor without means to pay for bail. Also hilarious boomer fear baiting No argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
buglord posted:Hiya friends, I just got my cal ballot voting guide. Want to be sure these choices on propositions make AOC and Bernie smile upon me! I still need to do my own research, but this lines up pretty well with the SF League Of Pissed Off Voters endorsements, with the exception of 14 & 25 where they say No. http://www.theleaguesf.org posted:State Propositions
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
You want No on 19. It's a huge tax giveaway to wealthy landowning boomers, and the Yes coalition is being backed by $20 million from realtor associations. The reason the Dem legislature supports it is because they all get donations from those same orgs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
buglord posted:Hiya friends, I just got my cal ballot voting guide. Want to be sure these choices on propositions make AOC and Bernie smile upon me! I'll just address parts I disagree on: 14: NO - I mean science is great but it's a huge bond thing for something that isn't as urgent as like, social spending right now. In a Trump Pt 2 admin it's probably not good timing. 19: NO - This prop reduces taxes for people who buy a house, but increases it on those who inherit. It's basically designed so Realtors can make money. Also anything that comes off of Prop 13 should be destroyed. 23: MEH - gently caress Davita but according to PeteRates the only useful part of this prop is already state law as of last year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
thanks for the input so far! stuff's confusing and it's a lot of info at once. Looks like 19 is a trap and actually should be No, 14 is well meaning but inappropriately timed. Would like to hear more about 25 because reading ballotpedia muddied the waters for me more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
buglord posted:thanks for the input so far! stuff's confusing and it's a lot of info at once. Looks like 19 is a trap and actually should be No, 14 is well meaning but inappropriately timed. Would like to hear more about 25 because reading ballotpedia muddied the waters for me more. PeteRates: http://www.peterates.com/props-1120.shtml#prop25 League of Women Voters https://lwvc.org/vote/elections/ballot-recommendations/prop-25-end-cash-money-bail
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
yeah here's ballotpedia's rundown on 19 allowing anyone born before 1965 to transfer their insanely low property tax rates to new more expensive houses, and statewide at that, is something they've already tried to do in 2018 that got shot down hard looks like this time they're now including a provision for inheritance triggering a reassessment (if it's not a primary residence), because i guess boomers figure that screwing their kids out of the tax rates they also enjoy will make it more palatable? that might be why those groups are now yes on it, since it might ultimately increase revenue, which i'm skeptical of when taken together with the whole first part of this prop H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Sep 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Can someone please talk me through the no on 25 arguments that aren't coming from the right? The bail system is super lovely and I'm having trouble imagining a less than perfect replacement somehow being worse. Also I really want to stick it to the bail bond industry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Can someone please talk me through the no on 25 arguments that aren't coming from the right? The bail system is super lovely and I'm having trouble imagining a less than perfect replacement somehow being worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Judges already have that power. They already set bail or release on Own Recognizance based on an OR report provided by county agencies. The new law sets three categories: high, medium, and low risk. Low always gets released, high always stays in, medium at judge's discretion or following county court rules. Most misdemeanors are exempted from assessment and will always be released on OR. Biggest concern is counties gaming the system so everyone gets assessed medium or above and the local judges wink and nod and never let anyone out before trial/plea. But they can do that now by setting bail you can't pay, so I don't see the difference there except we're excising a big chunk of the profit motive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Can someone please talk me through the no on 25 arguments that aren't coming from the right? The bail system is super lovely and I'm having trouble imagining a less than perfect replacement somehow being worse. "Pete Rates The Props posted:But Prop 25 is not perfect. Placing arrestees into those three risk categories is a tall order. Here’s some background. Basically that your flight risk is going to be set by an algorithm, and the algorithm is racist. Which does suck, but it is still a far, far, FAR better than cash bail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
California Politics Thread: We regret to inform you the algorithm is racist
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
lmao, leave it to an algorithm, really? Typical California. I bet you they're going to use the same algorithm this county used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
Look, the racism computer just has to be less racist than your average judge that has been forced to sit through an implicit bias training. Is that such a high bar?
CopperHound fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Sep 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
I love my state's idiot constitution that requires me to become a miniature legislator every two years to make sure I don't accidentally vote to legalize offworld slavery, there is no better way to govern a polity. My only difference from people like Pete Rates or whats been said ITT is probably that I'm a yes on the stem cell prop, also hell no on 19. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Sep 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 08:10
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:I love my state's idiot constitution that requires me to become a miniature legislator every two years to make sure I don't accidentally vote to legalize offworld slavery, there is no better way to govern a polity.  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 09:29
|
|
|
It is interesting that everyone is so fried by Trump and COVID that even though there's some hot button poo poo on the ballot this year (like affirmative action), it hasn't really penetrated into the popular discourse. Maybe it's just where I get my news, but I consider myself relatively plugged in on this stuff and it really seems like the propositions haven't gotten as much attention as they usually do. The only one that people really seem to be talking about is 15, and even then, less than I would expect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
Don’t forget the economic collapse, uprisings, and apocalyptic fires!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 10:48
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:It is interesting that everyone is so fried by Trump and COVID that even though there's some hot button poo poo on the ballot this year (like affirmative action), it hasn't really penetrated into the popular discourse. Maybe it's just where I get my news, but I consider myself relatively plugged in on this stuff and it really seems like the propositions haven't gotten as much attention as they usually do. The only one that people really seem to be talking about is 15, and even then, less than I would expect. Yeah I still haven't even read up on them properly, and will probably wait until I have my mail-in ballot in my hands to do so I'm honestly more worried about my lovely, inconsistent signature
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
What's the complaint from all the recall Newsom people?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:What's the complaint from all the recall Newsom people? I'm also curious. I've seen their tents in Orange County but 1. don't want to engage enough to ask, and 2. their signs and media don't really articulate anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
As far as their signs go: its because he doesn't surf?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 15:04
|
|