U.S. Politics 2017: Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I get it, you want all-mail voting.  Totally on board with that - and have emphasized this since I started posting around here frequently.  There's just much more nuance to caucuses vs. primaries than the generalized statements you were positing.

I don't really see how. Caucuses have overwhelmingly lower turnout as a rule compared to primaries, even closed ones. We even  have good data of primaries vs. caucuses in the same state (Washington and Nebraska), and it's very clear how many fewer people vote in caucuses.

I'm willing to say that primaries aren't necessarily perfectly inclusive and open, but they're very clearly more open and inclusive than caucuses ever are. 

In addition, caucuses seem to bring in people that are hyper-partisan the most, and that is another thing I want to avoid; I want primaries to be representative of the people, not representative of the base. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, r'hllor's redrum lobster said:

hell yeah, it actually is. 

Yeah, divide and conquer and all that. How about one night to celebrate a victory? One fucking night?

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't really see how. Caucuses have overwhelmingly lower turnout as a rule compared to primaries, even closed ones. We even  have good data of primaries vs. caucuses in the same state (Washington and Nebraska), and it's very clear how many fewer people vote in caucuses.

I'm willing to say that primaries aren't necessarily perfectly inclusive and open, but they're very clearly more open and inclusive than caucuses ever are. 

In addition, caucuses seem to bring in people that are hyper-partisan the most, and that is another thing I want to avoid; I want primaries to be representative of the people, not representative of the base. 

My point is you're making declarative instead of dependent statements.  Yes, caucuses tend to have lower turnout (thus naturally being less open and inclusive); and yes, caucuses tend to skew more partisan.  However, in terms of the first, this is contingent upon other factors than merely the operational differences between a caucus and a primary. 

In terms of the second, this is a normative debate upon what constituency is most important in galvanizing in a nominating contest.  You seem to want to maximize participation.  Ok.  That's one point of view.  Another point of view is those that are most involved and active within the party should have a larger say in which candidate represents them in the general election.  Like I said, I tend to agree with your position, but it's not as clear cut - and certainly much more open for debate - than what you're portraying.

[all swedes are racist]

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

What were they chanting?

tough to tell over the shitty music, but I think it was "you borrowed our vote, sanctuary for all people" or something like that

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, r'hllor's redrum lobster said:

hell yeah, it actually is. 

Why?  Again, what were they chanting?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, r'hllor's redrum lobster said:

tough to tell over the shitty music, but I think it was "you borrowed our vote, sanctuary for all people" or something like that

K, thanks.  I don't really understand how screaming off the governor-elect you just elected is great though, other than in an end-of-Fight-Club way.

[Paladin of Ice]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In addition, caucuses seem to bring in people that are hyper-partisan the most, and that is another thing I want to avoid; I want primaries to be representative of the people, not representative of the base. 

If this is really what you want then primaries as a whole may have to go. Primaries get most of their turnout from the most motivated voters, who also have a large overlap with being the most partisan and/or extreme. The last 10 years have proved that when extremists want to make their mark and get the most bang for their buck, the best place to do it is in the primary. It's a huge part of how Republicans have been run so far right, by axing candidates in the primaries or threatening to and forcing them to cover their right flank.

[lokisnow]

32 minutes ago, r'hllor's redrum lobster said:

also, lol

So the white, farm boy, veteran, pediatrician is not a future presidential candidate ?

 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

My point is you're making declarative instead of dependent statements.  Yes, caucuses tend to have lower turnout (thus naturally being less open and inclusive); and yes, caucuses tend to skew more partisan.  However, in terms of the first, this is contingent upon other factors than merely the operational differences between a caucus and a primary. 

Such as what? Again, if you can give me an example I'd appreciate it, because all the data makes it pretty clear that caucus gets less turnout, is less inclusive, and is more partisan. 

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

In terms of the second, this is a normative debate upon what constituency is most important in galvanizing in a nominating contest.  You seem to want to maximize participation.  Ok.  That's one point of view.  Another point of view is those that are most involved and active within the party should have a larger say in which candidate represents them in the general election.  Like I said, I tend to agree with your position, but it's not as clear cut - and certainly much more open for debate - than what you're portraying.

Sure, and I don't really care. I'm not saying what the objectively best thing is; I'm saying what the Democratic party could do, right now, to earn my money. I have personally decided that it is important that the party be as open, inclusive, and representative of everyone in the most fair way possible. It's certainly open for debate, but my actual value on it is not, and my goals towards that (such as open primaries and vote-by-mail) are consistent with that position. I don't intend to state that this is the opinion of everyone else, and I realize there are arguments to be made in favor of caucuses; I simply believe those are not as valuable as the arguments in favor of open primaries. 

[all swedes are racist]

12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, divide and conquer and all that. How about one night to celebrate a victory? One fucking night?

because it's not a football game? winning elections is the means, not the end. do i really have to explain this?

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

If this is really what you want then primaries as a whole may have to go. Primaries get most of their turnout from the most motivated voters, who also have a large overlap with being the most partisan and/or extreme. The last 10 years have proved that when extremists want to make their mark and get the most bang for their buck, the best place to do it is in the primary. It's a huge part of how Republicans have been run so far right, by axing candidates in the primaries or threatening to and forcing them to cover their right flank.

I'd love to get rid of primaries and have instant run-off elections, honestly. But I don't think that'll fly in the US, where election cycles being the longest god damn thing ever appears to be what people somehow actually desire. In the US system primaries function as this bizarre version of run-off elections. Based on that, I want to make primaries as simple and easy to vote in as humanly possible.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Such as what?

Such as what I've already mentioned - caucuses can mitigate cost of voting by being on weekends or opening more precincts just as primaries can exacerbate cost of voting by doing the opposite.  You're conflating caucuses as associated with other factors when that's not necessarily the case.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, and I don't really care. I'm not saying what the objectively best thing is; [...] 

I don't intend to state that this is the opinion of everyone else, and I realize there are arguments to be made in favor of caucuses; I simply believe those are not as valuable as the arguments in favor of open primaries. 

Again, ok.  If you just want to state your opinion and aren't interested in other arguments, then why bother replying?

[Fragile Bird]

My thoughts and prayers are being sent to Republicans out there.

 

Great thread title, btw!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, r'hllor's redrum lobster said:

because it's not a football game? winning elections is the means, not the end. do i really have to explain this?

You think you're going to meet that end by yelling the guy off his victory stage? Do I really have to explain why that's great?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Great thread title, btw!

Thank you. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Such as what I've already mentioned - caucuses can mitigate cost of voting by being on weekends or opening more precincts just as primaries can exacerbate cost of voting by doing the opposite.  You're conflating caucuses as associated with other factors when that's not necessarily the case.

All other factors being equal, caucuses are worse. I'm sure you can design a primary such that the turnout was worse than a caucus, but realistically that isn't going to happen. This seems like an argument in search of a problem. 

Tell ya what - when you can point me to a caucus that has a higher turnout than a primary with roughly the same number of people who could participate, let's talk. Otherwise get rid of caucuses.

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Again, ok.  If you just want to state your opinion and aren't interested in other arguments, then why bother replying?

I'm perfectly interested in other arguments, but that doesn't make my opinion invalid. I never claimed that I was stating the One True Thing. I replied to a comment about what would open my pocketbook again for Dems, because that's what I want to see. It might not be the right thing, and that's fine, but it's what I want to see. I understand there are other opinions, and I get that there are good reasons to go another way - but that doesn't change my opinion right now.

If you want to put forward an argument to try and change my opinion, that's fine too. Feel free. Pointing out that, like, that's just your opinion man is not particularly relevant to me; I'm aware.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You think you're going to meet that end by yelling the guy off his victory stage? Do I really have to explain why that's great?

No, but I think you do have to explain why you're so committed to small text.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

No, but I think you do have to explain why you're so committed to small text.

Just a simple tool to emphasize a sarcastic response. Great! That's just fucking great...

 It's meant to replicate muttering under one's breath, more or less.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Damn though -- Cyrus Vance Jr. still won -- though the last minute write-in candidate did very strongly. The problem was that so few people knew there was a write-in candidate, including most of the people sitting at table with me. They feel AWFUL!

Too bad it's not possible to recall a DA in New York.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

All other factors being equal, caucuses are worse. I'm sure you can design a primary such that the turnout was worse than a caucus, but realistically that isn't going to happen. This seems like an argument in search of a problem. 

Tell ya what - when you can point me to a caucus that has a higher turnout than a primary with roughly the same number of people who could participate, let's talk. Otherwise get rid of caucuses.

OMG..Yes, I conceded the point that, all else being equal, caucus' will take more time than primaries from the beginning.  Therefore the cost of voting, again - ceteris paribus, is going to be greater.  The nuance you seem incapable of allowing for is it does not mean caucuses are inherently unfair.  There are ways to mitigate this cost as much as possible and try to make a caucus as fair as possible.  

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm perfectly interested in other arguments, but that doesn't make my opinion invalid.

Dude, I've tried to validate your opinion throughout this.  The problem is you're clearly not interested in engaging in any other arguments.  As indicated by:

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I understand there are other opinions, and I get that there are good reasons to go another way - but that doesn't change my opinion right now.

So, yeah, no point.