DMC Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: And point of fact, Sanders would have lost even worse if it wasn't for caucuses; they were one of the only reasons he was even remotely close. That's why I don't think it matters. First, ceteris paribus caucuses actually help the more partisan/"far left" candidates because they encourage more active participation. Second, if there's a portion of Sanders supporters that still isn't going to support Democrats in 2020 or even next year because they think the system is "rigged," changing process is not going to change their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 16 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said: I'm about as harsh a critic of the Democratic party as you can find and even I would have infinitely preferred a Clinton presidency with a Schumer led Senate and a Pelosi led House than what we have now. Chuck Schumer wouldn't have been a bad choice as President . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 minute ago, dmc515 said: That's why I don't think it matters. First, ceteris paribus caucuses actually help the more partisan/"far left" candidates because they encourage more active participation. Second, if there's a portion of Sanders supporters that still isn't going to support Democrats in 2020 or even next year because they think the system is "rigged," changing process is not going to change their minds. Your first point is a good reason to do it. The second point is immaterial to me; I care not for appeasing the Sanders voters that won't care, and it isn't about them. It's about making a system that is sane and reasonable and invites everyone in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 hour ago, denstorebog said: But I'm reading your comment in Tucker Carlson's current voice, which is "on the verge of tears". Has the expression on his face changed? You know, the one where it looks like he's trying to figure out if he needs to shit or if it's just a fart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstorebog Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Has the expression on his face changed? You know, the one where it looks like he's trying to figure out if he needs to shit or it's just a fart? Dunno. He yielded the screen to a really nasty "attack on faith" angle on the Texas shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairparavel Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Remember the reporter and cameraman that were shot and killed on air on Virginia? Her boyfriend beat the Republican incumbent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 hour ago, dmc515 said: Santorum is somewhat of an expert on ooze. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_the_neologism_"santorum" /He's a frothy mixture of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Your first point is a good reason to do it. The second point is immaterial to me; I care not for appeasing the Sanders voters that won't care, and it isn't about them. It's about making a system that is sane and reasonable and invites everyone in. Caucuses do invite everyone in, they just have to make more of a commitment. I generally agree with you, but there are pros to caucuses as well - namely supporting and generating activism that often goes a long way in the grassroots portion of inspiring an electorate. I think it's a false premise to say caucuses during the nomination process are inherently unfair, let alone unreasonable or insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_the_neologism_"santorum" /He's a frothy mixture of stuff. Thanks for explaining my joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 42 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said: And supposing the Democrats win all back, everything. Then what? . How can they put the house in order when they have own divisions , issues and lack of leadership to contend with ? And who would they unite around ? Who will going to lead them? Hopefully they will figure at least some of that out. Give us a moment to celebrate a little, wouldja? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Maine voted to expand Medicaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said: Retired marine and self described socialist Lee Carter is about to beat VA's GOP whip in the statehouse. hell yeah baby! eta: lots of good news for the left all over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Caucuses do invite everyone in, they just have to make more of a commitment. I generally agree with you, but there are pros to caucuses as well - namely supporting and generating activism that often goes a long way in the grassroots portion of inspiring an electorate. I think it's a false premise to say caucuses during the nomination process are inherently unfair, let alone unreasonable or insane. Caucuses often don't invite everyone in - they're almost always Democrat-only, have waiting lines and strict time requirements (often on weekdays) that cause a whole lot of people who have, ya know, jobs and lives to completely miss it. I'm cool with having things that grassroots organizers get involved in. I just don't think that this is remotely good for the national races in any way, shape or form. Do it like California, where the POTUS and Federal elections are done via primary and other things can be done other ways. Caucuses are inherently unfair - they entirely bias things towards people willing to put in a strong time commitment. This doesn't seem like a hard concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Hopefully they will figure at least some of that out. Give us a moment to celebrate a little, wouldja? Change for the sake of change makes me a bit skittish . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Thanks for explaining my joke! Wasn't sure if that was in the common parlance or not. Didn't mean to step on your toes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 minute ago, GAROVORKIN said: Change for the sake of change makes me a bit skittish . Given our new normal? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Finally, some good news for Democrats. Looks like Trump is a big drag on Republicans. Hope the Mueller investigation either concludes with an indictment of Trump or lasts until the 2018 elections. The steady drip, drip, drip of news about collusion with Russia is going to drag down Trump like Clinton's emails continually dragged Clinton down. Trump sounds nervous. If Republican voters repudiate congressmen that are Trump supporters (or at least fail to support them so that they end up losing to Democrats), I could see impeachment and removal begin to be a real possibility. We're not close to there yet, but this might be the first step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Given our new normal? Not so much. Point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 minute ago, GAROVORKIN said: Change for the sake of change makes me a bit skittish . But it's not change for the sake of change. The Democrats that won tonight largely won on the basis of running FOR something. The aforementioned trans woman who won her seat ran on the primary focus of fixing traffic. The notion that because there isn't a national message meaning there isn't any message is obviously false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Caucuses often don't invite everyone in - they're almost always Democrat-only Then your issue is closed vs. open contests, not primaries vs. caucuses. 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: have waiting lines and strict time requirements (often on weekdays) that cause a whole lot of people who have, ya know, jobs and lives to completely miss it. Well, so can primaries, but this would go into the "require more commitment" point. 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Caucuses are inherently unfair - they entirely bias things towards people willing to put in a strong time commitment. This doesn't seem like a hard concept. It's not a hard concept, it's a fundamentally flawed concept. There are a lot of variables that go into cost of voting, and each individual contest varies to the point in which primaries can make it harder and caucuses can make it easier - such as having more precincts or holding the contest on a weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.