|
 http://i.imgur.com/0N8enBj.mp4                FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is the difference between a caucus and a primary? Simply, a primary is run by the state and a caucus is run by the party. Primaries tend to use the Australian ballot, which lists several candidate choices allowing you to mark one in a private election. Caucuses are meetings staged by the political party. They are typically run using Robert's Rules of Order. Often, supporters of each candidate are allowed to make a short speech in support of their choice. After the speeches, votes are cast by the caucus attendees for the candidates. After those votes are tabulated, delegates are selected for the next round of causes (typically precinct, county, district and state) based on the rules agreed to by the caucus attendees. What are closed and open primaries? A closed primary is one in which only registered members of that party may vote, for example only Republicans being allowed to vote in a Republican primary. Open primaries allow each voter to decide which ballot they would like to vote on, so a registered Democrat could vote in the Republican primary in an open primary state. Some states are semi-open. For example, Arizona allows registered Republicans and Libertarians to vote in its Republican primary, but not registered Democrats. Each state is allowed to decide its own rules, though parties have successfully sued to force the state to adopt their rules. Are there differences between Republican and Democratic caucuses? Yes there are. Republican caucuses will change in 2016 to awarding delegates proportionally based on the straw poll vote cast during the precinct-level caucuses. This can be though of as the "Ron Paul rule", since its purpose is to prevent a repeat of what his supporters did in 2008 and 2012 where they lost the straw poll vote at the precinct caucuses in some states, but managed to capture large numbers of delegates from those states using wily tactics like "showing up at later meetings" that the opposition was unprepared to counter. Democratic caucuses are much more interesting because the party imposes a 15% "viability threshold". If you vote for a candidate at your caucus precinct and that candidate doesn't receive 15% of the vote, there is another round of voting and you are allowed to either leave or cast a new vote for one of the candidates that did meet the threshold. These votes are sometimes cast on a private ballot, or sometimes people stand in various corners of the room while a head count is conducted and they all yell at the other groups while this is happening to get more supporters. Aren't these caucuses undemocratic? Why shouldn't we just have a simple state-wide vote run by the state and award delegates proportionally? Why should I have to pay for your stupid political party's dumb beauty contest?  CURRENT PRIMARY CALENDAR 2016 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions Chronologically DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES Handicapped list. Listed in alphabetical order with their most significant political achievement.
2,804 delegates awarded so far of the 2,651 district, 909 at large, 491 pledged PLEOs, 713 unpledged PLEOs, or 4,764 total available delegates to the DNC. DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES Handicapped list. Listed in alphabetical order with their most significant political achievement.
REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT
PRIMARY ELECTION RESOURCES Frontloading HQ The Green Papers FiveThirtyEight's endorsement list       http://i.imgur.com/elqSWh6.gifv  
Joementum fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 13, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:35
|
|
, Secretary of State
, Senator from Vermont
, Vice President
, Governor of Maryland
, Senator from Virginia
, Constitutionally Eligible
, Governor of Florida
, Neurosurgeon
, Governor of New Jersey
, Senator from Texas
, Governor of Arkansas
, Governor of Louisiana
, Governor of Ohio
, Senator from Kentucky
, Governor of Texas
, Senator from Florida
, Senator from Pennsylvania
, Governor of Michigan (not actually running, but has a great gif)
, Governor of Wisconsin
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Fred Thompson missing from Republican possibilities list. Samuel Wurzelbacher too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
So apart from the joke, is there any reason why Chelsea Clinton is up there? Also, is there any solid information indicating that Hilary would hire Mark Penn, and if so, why the everloving gently caress she would do that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Better get Rauner in there before MIGF sees you left him out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Herman Cain would be heartbroken to see you missed the accent in Pokémaster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Herman Cain would be heartbroken to see you missed the accent in Pokémaster. I'm also not sure if Pokémaster or sim city tax advisor is the more distinguished position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
I honestly hope that both Bachmann and Palin run and get to the final group in Iowa/NH. Just for the laughs, even though it will eventually turn to tears as I lose faith in humanity. Also, go Jon Huntsman, who should be labeled 'probably a goon.' Who was it in 2012's primaries that heavily supported him, Arzy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Fred Thompson missing from Republican possibilities list. Ted Cruz as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
I'm glad Bachmann is credited as Sky Admiral. I hope she's in the Primary, at least, for another ANDERSON moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Also, go Jon Huntsman, who should be labeled 'probably a goon.' Who was it in 2012's primaries that heavily supported him, Arzy? Arkane, who is backing Rand this time around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Ted Cruz as well. For a preview of what this will look like, imagine what happened to Perry on immigration, but for every issue. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Oh no way, Palin is actually running? This is incredible. I think the primaries just jumped the shark. I haven't tuned in to US elections since 2008, when I was much more optimistic than I am now. They're always entertaining though you have to give them credit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Oh no way, Palin is actually running? This is incredible. I think the primaries just jumped the shark. I don't think she'll actually run, but she is doing the requisite "I'm not ruling it out..." moves to get the PAC donations flowing from rubes again. There is always hope though!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Oh no way, Palin is actually running? This is incredible. I think the primaries just jumped the shark. She threatens to run a lot but I don't think she'll ever declare, it would just be embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah Palin is 100% not running, she might have to do actual work then and she's done with doing that, she just wants to get on TV saying dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Piell posted:Yeah Palin is 100% not running, she might have to do actual work then and she's done with doing that, she just wants to get on TV saying dumb poo poo. If she ran for president, she would give up her lucrative career as a Republican Stand-Up Comedian/Motivational speaker. Plus, have you seen her speeches. She can barely string together two sentences on the same subject. I don't think she could handle a political speech where she can't just flip from subject to subject in a series of attempted witty quips.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
I hope Ted Cruz runs. He's such a poo poo, and will do exactly what fade5 said. Problem for him is, this time there will be quite a few sharp candidates in the running, and they will tear him apart when he starts biting their ankles. I'm personally all over the place as to who I want to support/win the primary. Whether I settle on him or someone new, I hope Romney runs again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
She's doing pretty well fleecing dumb idiots of their cash while pretending to run. I really hope Donald Trump finally gets off his rear end and runs for President, purely for the comedy factor. But he's in the Palin category of 'will just get people to pay him/her and not actually ever run'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Is there a new intrade around these days? I want to cash in on Jeb while the price is still low.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
That handicapped list in OP is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Anyone want to team up and mimic that draft? We can switch up the parameters to be more entertaining and competitive. Raskolnikov38 posted:Is there a new intrade around these days? I want to cash in on Jeb while the price is still low. No new intrade...there's Betfair if you're a non-American. That will probably be the most heavily traded market. There's also a site called PredictIt that just launched a couple weeks ago. The details are a bit sketchy, but the deposit limit (as I understand, less than $1000) prevents it from ever reaching Intrade-level. Last but not least, Nevada is lightly discussing legalizing political betting. It wouldn't pass until next year, though, if at all, so likely wouldn't see anything until the back end of 2015. Arkane fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
On the Democrats' side, what about Jim Webb??? I've heard minor rumblings in the past that he could be a potential candidate. Honest to God Truth, I would heavily consider actually voting (D) for President if he was the candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:She's doing pretty well fleecing dumb idiots of their cash while pretending to run. Your latter instinct is correct: neither Trump nor Palin will ever run for anything, as they both empty cans rattling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
The correct form is "Pokemon Master."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Piell posted:Yeah Palin is 100% not running, she might have to do actual work then and she's done with doing that, she just wants to get on TV saying dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
In case you missed it last time around: ShadowCatBoy's amazing gif series, On the Campaign Trail (D&D with Republican Primary candidates). For 2016 I'm thinking maybe we should do some sort of kickstarter or patreon account for him for a repeat performance. Cicero fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
For continuing news on how everything is hosed on the Democratic side, the Clintons are reportedly in talks with Mark Penn 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
I want the Dem primary to be as big as possible, since apparently Dems care too much about the presidency and more people need to be brought in to build new infrastructure independent if the party basically everywhere. Of course, if we're talking about it being Bernie Sanders and all his people go back to talking about how "real change doesn't come with voting, it comes with symbolic social activism" after losing like the Nader people I worked with, then gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I mentioned this in the midterm aftermath, but the only serious candidates on the R side will be Christie, Walker, Jeb and maybe Jindal or Romney (who I don't think will run.) Cruz is good at making noise and raising money but not much else, Rubio needs another term in the Senate and possibly a term or two as FLGOV before running (could be an interesting VP pick, though) and Paul won't risk his seat if he has to choose between the two. Ben Carson ran a long infomercial today in a bunch of swing state markets and is an interesting outsider candidate but he has no real political experience and seems to be gearing up for a run in order to get the Surgeon General position in a Republican administration. Paul Ryan will only run if for whatever reason Scott Walker chooses not to. Anyone not on that list either isn't running or will run, poll in the single digits in IA/NH/etc and drop out shortly after. I see the '16 strategy as a retooling of what worked in 2014 - run against Obama/the D candidate(ok, Hillary) as another 4 years of Obama and run candidates both at the top of the ticket and downballot nationwide that have a lower risk of gaffes and Akinesque statements that can be painted onto the whole party. Overall I think the GOP has a solid shot at winning in 2016. Hillary is the household name and will be difficult to defeat but she has a lot of trends tilting against her: - Since the introduction of Presidential term limits we've only had one occurrence of a party holding the White House for 3 consecutive terms when GHWB rode the coattails of Reagan's 489/525EV landslides. The voting public generally favors the party that's been out of power after a President's second term. - Experience. Junior Senator for 8 years, 4 years as an unremarkable Secretary of State where she will be hit on Benghazi. Does being married to the President count? I'm sure it does to some people. - Age. Hillary will be 69 on election day, and every "One heartbeat away" criticism of McCain will be turned around on her. - Old wounds. Some people don't like Hillary from her days in the WH with Bill in the 90s. Some don't like her from the Obama/Clinton primaries of '08. Some of those divisions will have healed, some won't. Either way she's generally a known quantity and she's not likely to change anyone's mind at this point. - Navigating two very different, difficult to predict electorates. Both previous Presidential elections and the current midterms make pretty clear that the Democratic Party has two electorates: the general, generic Democrat and the Barack Obama voter. The Obama voter will crawl through broken glass to vote when Obama is on the ticket, and stay home and not care about politics if he isn't (though they may be inclined to vote if the candidate and Obama both strongly support each other.) Assuming the President's approval rating trends similarly to others in years 7-8, he could be in the low-mid 30s or below as November 2016 approaches. As the Democratic candidate, do you ignore or throw Obama under the bus, ensuring those Obama-only voters will stay home but potentially saving the votes of independents/left-moderate Rs who may not like the R candidate - or do you run on continuing Obama's policies and hope that both the Obama voters show up for a non-Obama candidate while not driving away those who would be pro-Dem but are anti-Obama? Either way it'll be a fun two years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
I have to imagine the question "just how big a thing will people voting Clinton because 'first woman president!' be?" is looming large in the minds of both parties approaching this race
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
The Democratic Party below Clinton and a few of those senators is so utterly hosed. The bench is empty everywhere. There's no current governor that could run, and if you wanted to make a break from Obama, that's the way to go. But it's probably a bad idea to alienate the 40% that still likes him, and Clinton is more likely not to do that. I'd be more worried about a lack of any coattails from anyone, including Clinton. Not because she's not good, but because 2010 and 2014 decimated the bench. In other words, if Clinton loses, the Dems are probably going to be a ripe carcass for picking up and driving towards anything that seems like a plan, good or bad. It could work like the Tea Party. It could be the spark of a new left party that wins. Or it could end up like the Labour Party in 1983 and the only way out will be to go even more corporate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Hahahaha between Mark Penn and Sean Wilentz, Hillary's really living down to expectations. At least Penn is still just a rumor.Chris Christie posted:On the Democrats' side, what about Jim Webb??? He used to be floated as sort of a successor to Clinton in that he could attract working-class, Southern, and Appalachian whites (specifically white men) but the love affair ended when it became apparent that he neither could not desired to appeal to anyone else. Given the post-Bush Democratic reliance on minority turnout, Webb is pretty much a nonstarter. He runs and Rubio just waves around his old oped about how "it's a disgrace that immigrants are getting college educations before hardworking white Americans" crying "why does Jim Webb hate the American Dream?" Like, come on. Come on. To support the idea that it's not ridiculous as gently caress to whine about there being no Protestants on the Supreme Court, he points to the historical domination of the Court by Protestants. This guy does not make it through the Democratic primaries, let alone the general. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Torka posted:I have to imagine the question "just how big a thing will people voting Clinton because 'first woman president!' be?" is looming large in the minds of both parties approaching this race It would be a lot bigger if it were Warren instead of Clinton. Hillary will have been a national public figure for about 25 years come election time - I don't think there are too many voters that have no opinion of her either way but would also go to the polls and vote Clinton simply for the sake of history. Nor are there many voters who would overlook what they don't like about her just because she's a woman. The vast majority of people who would cite her gender as the main factor for their vote were probably going to vote the Democratic candidate anyway. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:It would be a lot bigger if it were Warren instead of Clinton. Hillary will have been a national public figure for about 25 years come election time - I don't think there are too many voters that have no opinion of her either way but would also go to the polls and vote Clinton simply for the sake of history. Nor are there many voters who would overlook what they don't like about her just because she's a woman. The vast majority of people who would cite her gender as the main factor for their vote were probably going to vote the Democratic candidate anyway. Assuming they were going to vote at all, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:It would be a lot bigger if it were Warren instead of Clinton. Hillary will have been a national public figure for about 25 years come election time - I don't think there are too many voters that have no opinion of her either way but would also go to the polls and vote Clinton simply for the sake of history. Nor are there many voters who would overlook what they don't like about her just because she's a woman. The vast majority of people who would cite her gender as the main factor for their vote were probably going to vote the Democratic candidate anyway. I'd agree with all this if Americans only voted on the issues, but I think they care a whole lot more about surface and symbolism than these forums tend to predict Doctor Spaceman posted:Assuming they were going to vote at all, of course. There's no way the opportunity to vote for the first woman president isn't going to draw out a non-trivial number of people who wouldn't have bothered otherwise. 2008 had record turnout, 10 million more voters than 2004 showed up and the percentage of the overall vote made up by black people increased from 11% to 13%. I think we could definitely see the same effect with women voting for Hillary Torka fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Torka posted:There's no way the opportunity to vote for the first woman president isn't going to draw out a non-trivial number of people who wouldn't have bothered otherwise
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Yeah, that's what I mean. People who might vote for her because she's a woman were likely to be Democrat supporters already but that doesn't mean they'd have bothered to vote. Democrats will turn out for a woman with a male face attached to them; whether they'll turn out for a woman without a well-known man attached to her, remains to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Democrats will turn out for a woman with a male face attached to them; whether they'll turn out for a woman without a well-known man attached to her, remains to be seen. Yeah, it's a huge unanswered question that both sides must be scrambling to try to answer behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Rick Perry's new smarty pants glasses took him to the Ivy League tonight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Yeah, that's what I mean. People who might vote for her because she's a woman were likely to be Democrat supporters already but that doesn't mean they'd have bothered to vote. There may be some, but not nearly as many as you'd think. Obama had the combination of being a political first on top of being the most charismatic and personally likable candidate in a generation and running in one of the most D-friendly environments in a decade, and that drew out millions of voters who would have never gone to the polls otherwise. Even if you believe that Hillary can draw enough women voters to swing a state (much less an entire race) solely on the basis of her gender and personality, it won't be anywhere near the raw total of voters that are most likely going to sit out 2016. I think a regression to 50-55% turnout (every election from 1972 to 2004 besides 1996 levels) is very possible without Obama on the ballot. And if that were to be a factor, there's nothing stopping the GOP from putting up Haley or Rice for VP to blunt the impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
CubsWoo posted:It would be a lot bigger if it were Warren instead of Clinton. Hillary will have been a national public figure for about 25 years come election time - I don't think there are too many voters that have no opinion of her either way but would also go to the polls and vote Clinton simply for the sake of history. Nor are there many voters who would overlook what they don't like about her just because she's a woman. The vast majority of people who would cite her gender as the main factor for their vote were probably going to vote the Democratic candidate anyway. Hillary's been a "national figure" for 25 years but outside of her SoS stint she hasn't been on anyone's mind in the past 15 years unless you're from New York. That's long enough for anyone under the age of 30 to not know who she is until now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:21
|
|
