|
deleted; what was it?
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
nerve posted:Is there any defending caucuses? Please let this poo poo die They are an expression of the party. If the party chooses to make them a poo poo show, it gets what it deserves. There's no reason the public should have to bail them out of their own incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:deleted; what was it? https://mobile.twitter.com/elainaplott/status/702316049224433664
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:They are an expression of the party. If the party chooses to make them a poo poo show, it gets what it deserves. There's no reason the public should have to bail them out of their own incompetence.  YCS: That's okay, things are gonna be okay
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
I'm not sure I really buy the argument that the state shouldn't regulate party internals (like caucuses). The political parties are part of our democracy now, whether we like it or not, and the government should have some say in how its own political process works. If we aren't going to do anything to end the two party system, then having this say means we should regulate the party apparatus. Note this is totally an argument from "should", not "constitutionally/feasibly could". I don't have enough knowledge of the structure of government to make a definitive claim either way there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NVGOP/status/702332313061883904
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I'm not sure I really buy the argument that the state shouldn't regulate party internals (like caucuses). The political parties are part of our democracy now, whether we like it or not, and the government should have some say in how its own political process works. If we aren't going to do anything to end the two party system, then having this say means we should regulate the party apparatus. If you're unsatisfied with how one political party runs things, you have an alternative. Again, there's no reason that the state, the collective people, should have to bail out a party that doesn't take its own organization seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If you're unsatisfied with how one political party runs things, you have an alternative. Again, there's no reason that the state, the collective people, should have to bail out a party that doesn't take its own organization seriously. OK and then if you have two? Or even one. The parties are bottlenecks on political power and political participation. To trust the wisdom of the market will find a better way means potentially decades of worse dysfunction than we have now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
menino posted:OK and then if you have two? Or even one. The parties are bottlenecks on political power and political participation. To trust the wisdom of the market will find a better way means potentially decades of worse dysfunction than we have now. If the members of one party are dissatisfied with how things are being run, they can volunteer and organize to change things. All those precincts tonight are being run by volunteers. If the Republicans of Nevada think they can do better, they're free to do so. In fact, that's the first order of business at each caucus precinct: electing the precinct chair. The party system is highly permeable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Its also worth noting that there are hundreds of caucus sites all over the state with media and cell phones ready to go. The few that descend into raving madness get covered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If the members of one party are dissatisfied with how things are being run, they can volunteer and organize to change things. All those precincts tonight are being run by volunteers. If the Republicans of Nevada think they can do better, they're free to do so. In fact, that's the first order of business at each caucus precinct: electing the precinct chair. The party system is highly permeable. Which is what let the Paulites wreck so much havoc last time. A person with knowledge of Roberts Rules can be very dangerous indeed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Which is what let the Paulites wreck so much havoc last time. That was amazing, and imo a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
NVGOP 2003: "There have been no official reports of troop irregularities within Baghdad."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
You know what is going to be the most aggravating part of all this? All those "Brooks Brothers Riot" fuckers are going to be screaming from the rooftops about "vote count shenanigans" when Trump wins It may end up being too cynically hypocritical even for me
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:You know what is going to be the most aggravating part of all this? All those "Brooks Brothers Riot" fuckers are going to be screaming from the rooftops about "vote count shenanigans" when Trump wins
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wendycarrillo/status/702340149535854592
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Fox just had an entrance poll of Nevada's Hispanic republican caucus-goers. Trump won a plurality with 41% What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Fox just had an entrance poll of Nevada's Hispanic republican caucus-goers. Trump won a plurality with 41%
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Fox just had an entrance poll of Nevada's Hispanic republican caucus-goers. Trump won a plurality with 41% Entrance polls are wildly inaccurate as an indicator of the general population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Lmaooo What the GOP this flagrantly white-only in 2012? I honestly don't remember
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Lmaooo
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:have you been following US politics at any point over the past 20 years I have but I'd be interested to see the trend line. Like as much as a fun joke as it is, it's hard to believe that the GOP is actually getting MORE white over time - or even just not staying still - considering the demographic trends. 96% white in SC, 86% in NV...these aren't states with marginal minority populations I mean not HARD to believe, but I'd say that the odds are so against something like that being the case that I'd almost be willing to bet against it
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Lmaooo I don't know about primary voters, but in the 2012 election whites were 72% of the electorate. Romney won the white vote 59-39, but lost the election 47-51. This means that 90% of Romney's voters were white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
What're Nevada's racial demographics? I thought it was heavily white, although not as much as the Republican primary. Svanja posted:Maybe get data from unbiased researchers? And how do you feel about the ncpa.org link I gave that uses data from Dept. of Corrections?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:13
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Epic High Five posted:I have but I'd be interested to see the trend line. Like as much as a fun joke as it is, it's hard to believe that the GOP is actually getting MORE white over time - or even just not staying still - considering the demographic trends. 96% white in SC, 86% in NV...these aren't states with marginal minority populations Pew posted:In 2009, 88% of Republicans are white, unchanged from 2000 and far above the national total.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:What're Nevada's racial demographics? I thought it was heavily white, although not as much as the Republican primary. According to the US Census, Nevada is 51.5% non-hispanic whites. Over one-quarter of the population id's as hispanic/latino.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:What're Nevada's racial demographics? I thought it was heavily white, although not as much as the Republican primary. 65% White non-hispanic, 20% hispanic, 5% Asian, 7% black Edit: Oops, that was based on the 2000 census. Above post has correct numbers Tarezax fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/ Man that's some dire, damning poo poo. I can't believe they looked at those numbers and trends in 2009 and still pressed the Tea Party Time button
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
I didn't realize Nevada grew so much, but it's more than doubled from 1990-2010. I knew about the housing bubble making Vegas a popular place to live, but the state will probably hit 3 million by the next census, which is insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:have you been following US politics at any point over the past 20 years Prior to 2008 the GOP wasn't nearly as bad as it is now http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2004/
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Prior to 2008 the GOP wasn't nearly as bad as it is now Yeah, I think Obama getting elected was the end for the Dixiecrats, who hadn't yet gotten the memo of the Southern Strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Prior to 2008 the GOP wasn't nearly as bad as it is now
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:He won 8% of what sample size with 41%? Is a sample that small even meaningful? https://twitter.com/nielslesniewski/status/702365939145314304
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Prior to 2008 the GOP wasn't nearly as bad as it is now Going back to 1996, the GOP voters were 90+% white pretty much always except 2004 (when whites were 87% of the GOP electorate). I mean granted, whites were a much larger proportion back in the day as well (whites were 83% of the electorate in 1996 compared with 72% in 2012) but it's not inaccurate to say that the GOP won the white vote or that their voters were mostly white. The closest margin Democrats had was in 1996, when whites went 46-44 in favor of Dole. The farthest was Obama in 2012. Can you guess the second farthest? Kerry, in 2004. He lost whites 58-41, compared with Obama who lost 59-39 in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Numbers that low you can entirely write off as crazies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
I've just now flipped to thinking Trump is more likely than not to be the nominee. We could be witnessing the beginning of one of the most massive, epic electoral rear end-kickings the GOP has ever suffered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Are there still goons who think Trump won't be the nominee? Are they the same goons who think Marco Rubio coming in 3rd means he's really first because (numbers)? Forget it Jake, it's USPol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
I'm convinced that Trump is a Clinton plant meant to be a paper tiger in the general
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
I work in renewables(wind), and will likely be losing my job if Trump wins as he holds a massive grudge against the industry. These developments are pretty unsettling to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
Freezer posted:I work in renewables(wind), and will likely be losing my job if Trump wins as he holds a massive grudge against the industry. These developments are pretty unsettling to say the least. At least you won't be like one of the millions who will be voting to have their healthcare stripped. Kynect was just a preview 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:03
|
|