Jump to content

US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected


Rippounet

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DMC said:

See here.  The NCSL is usually pretty accurate, albeit that page hasn't been update in a year and a half.  Anyway, they've got 9 states that are "totally" closed, and another 7 that are "partially closed."  All remaining states/systems, yes, would be open to unaffiliated voters.

I just want to clarify that while they are open to unaffiliated voters, some of these structures strongly discourage participation, especially when participation forces some sort of relationship with that party.

Some unaffiliated have major issues with both major parties and don't want to be associated with or subsidize either and/or there are those who have problems with parties in principle. Forcing them into any party relationship is a major deterrent to them voting in either party's primary.

Some unaffiliated may be disaffected Republicans who still can't make the jump to an official relationship with the Democratic party. A Sanders candidacy may well create a large number of disaffected Democrats in future cycles who likewise feel alienated by this.

There's a subset of self-identified independents who just think it's rebellious or cool to be independent even though their views don't reflect any true independence. They lose their coolness if they're put into a party in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is it possible Biden wont even meet the 15% threshold?

538 has a table of possibilities, and if it ends up being a narrow Sanders win with Warren 2nd, then his chance of winning a majority of delegates go above 50%. Again, speculative, but one way this could happen is if Biden's support in SC collapses (just as he doesnt have the deep connection to Iowa that Obama created, the same is true of his AA support compared to...Obama of course, but also Hillary maybe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I just want to clarify [...]

Sure, but none of this is relevant to the topic of unaffiliated voters having the opportunity to vote for Sanders in the primary if they so chose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, but none of this is relevant to the topic of unaffiliated voters having the opportunity to vote for Sanders in the primary if they so chose.

"Opportunity" needs to be qualified. A truly free opportunity isn't the same as an opportunity with penalties. When trying to anticipate actual voter behavior especially with independents/unaffiliated, this is very important and it's my understanding that anticipating voter participation was the point of the original question.

For example, I can vote in a primary, but I have to be nearly desperate to do so when it means I get dumped into that party against my will as a consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mormont said:

OK, but that just leads me to further questions. Like, aren't many of the primaries open to these voters already? And how many voters out there aren't registered Dems but are left-wing enough to vote for Sanders? Again, I believe you that they're out there - but it seems to me there's an act of faith in believing in this untapped well of Sanders voters that exists in all the right constituencies. Like, those fabled white working class voters in the upper mid-west - is there much evidence that they're really keen to vote for Sanders, or is this a case of Sanders supporters thinking 'well, those types of voters should vote for Sanders, it's in their interests, so of course they will!'

Remember what I said about voting being emotional as much as it is rational. That, it seems to me, is both the opportunity and the danger for Sanders. He can engage voters' emotions strongly - in both directions.

The primaries are only open to registered Democrats. This was a big point of contention in 2015-16--many states, like New York, had rules that you had to register with a party something like 12 months before the primaries--I don't remember the timeline exactly, but it was at a point where people didn't know who was running yet. Since 2016, those rules have been fixed in lots of places.

I guess I can only answer your query about the independent voters who can't vote in the primary. Are they centrists, or are they voters who might hear Bernie's message and agree? I can't say. Bernie's strategy doesn't rely on that so much. He is relying on motivating the non-voters. The 2016 election was a super low-turnout election, and when voters don't turn out, Republicans tend to win. Bernie's goal is to increase turnout (which worked well for Obama). 

The socialist tag is likely a problem. And it is confounding--I mean he's 78 years old and recently had a heart attack. That's pretty scary to me. He has to know this, and that means if he wins the nomination--his VP pick, if he truly believes in the movement, has to be equally left as him as there's a possibility he won't survive his first term. This means he can't be conciliatory and pick a moderate VP. Though, Hillary wasn't with her VP pick either, so maybe that's not a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

So is it possible Biden wont even meet the 15% threshold?

It's possible, but I wouldn't bet money on it -- there's a reason they didn't want to release that poll and I very much doubt it's the irregularities with regard to Buttigieg alone...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

The primaries are only open to registered Democrats. This was a big point of contention in 2015-16--many states, like New York, had rules that you had to register with a party something like 12 months before the primaries--I don't remember the timeline exactly, but it was at a point where people didn't know who was running yet. Since 2016, those rules have been fixed in lots of places.

I guess I can only answer your query about the independent voters who can't vote in the primary. Are they centrists, or are they voters who might hear Bernie's message and agree? I can't say. Bernie's strategy doesn't rely on that so much. He is relying on motivating the non-voters. The 2016 election was a super low-turnout election, and when voters don't turn out, Republicans tend to win. Bernie's goal is to increase turnout (which worked well for Obama). 

The socialist tag is likely a problem. And it is confounding--I mean he's 78 years old and recently had a heart attack. That's pretty scary to me. He has to know this, and that means if he wins the nomination--his VP pick, if he truly believes in the movement, has to be equally left as him as there's a possibility he won't survive his first term. This means he can't be conciliatory and pick a moderate VP. Though, Hillary wasn't with her VP pick either, so maybe that's not a big deal.

FYI, in South Carolina all primaries are open to any registered voter.  There is no Republican primary for President this year.    I’ll be a poll manager for SC during the 2/29 primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

"Opportunity" needs to be qualified. A truly free opportunity isn't the same as an opportunity with penalties. When trying to anticipate actual voter behavior especially with independents/unaffiliated, this is very important and it's my understanding that anticipating voter participation was the point of the original question.

Again, if the context of the argument is unaffiliated voters should be motivated to vote for Sanders in the general, then identifying with the party in which he's participating in your primary is a very low cost for such enthusiasm among "independent" non-voters Sanders is apparently mobilizing.  You're having a different argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FYI, in South Carolina all primaries are open to any registered voter.  There is no Republican primary for President this year.    I’ll be a poll manager for SC during the 2/29 primary.

Yeah, Colorado switched to open primary (we had to caucus in 2016), and it seems like such a better way of running things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Again, if the context of the argument is unaffiliated voters should be motivated to vote for Sanders in the general, then identifying with the party in which he's participating in your primary is a very low cost for such enthusiasm among "independent" non-voters Sanders is apparently mobilizing.  You're having a different argument.

As an independent, I strongly disagree with the very low cost assessment, even if someone really likes Bernie or any candidate. An increasing number of Americans identify as independent for whatever reason and the number wanting options beyond Rs and Ds increases. Subsidizing the two party system is part of the problem for some of us.

George Washington was right. Parties suck, They weren't written into our political system and the two major parties teaming up to strangle any third choice before it gets a chance, in part through closed or penalized open primaries, is exactly how Trump took over the Republicans and why we had the impeachment "trial" that we did. They are beholden to their party and more specifically their party base, not the general electorate or any principle. 

I see the left complain about the what the Republican party has become, yet they fail to recognize that they're enabling the system which created it and opening themselves to the same thing happening with the Ds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

The primaries are only open to registered Democrats.

This is not true. It was not true in 2016 or now. Some are that way, but definitely not all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

Parties suck, They weren't written into our political system and the two major parties teaming up to strangle any third choice before it gets a chance

Until we change the dominant electoral system, it is irrational to fight against the two-party system in the country - if you want to substantively participate.  So, I'd focus your energy on trying to change the former.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

This is not true. It was not true in 2016 or now. Some are that way, but definitely not all.

I gave a link and everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Until we change the dominant electoral system, it is irrational to fight against the two-party system in the country - if you want to substantively participate.  So, I'd focus your energy on trying to change the former.

Nothing changes if we keep going along with it. I have major problems with both parties and parties in general, especially after what's happened to the Republicans and what's looking like a stronger possibility with Democrats. I don't want to be part of it and I'll refuse to vote for a primary candidate that I strongly support because I feel even more strongly that the party system as it is at present is worse both for me personally and for the country as a whole.

When people get into power, they become less interested in changing a system which now enforces their power unless it strengthens their power even further. It becomes circular. That's by design on the part of both the Rs and the Ds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

The 2016 election was a super low-turnout election, and when voters don't turn out, Republicans tend to win. Bernie's goal is to increase turnout (which worked well for Obama). 

Do you mean the 2016 primary or general?  Comparing one primary to another is kind of an apples to oranges thing.  But assessing the general, no, 2016 was not a low turnout election.  Overall turnout was 55.7%, higher than 2012, and way above 2000 or 1996.  It was lower than 2008 and 2004, so I guess you could call it about average, or maybe a bit above average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Do you mean the 2016 primary or general?  Comparing one primary to another is kind of an apples to oranges thing.  But assessing the general, no, 2016 was not a low turnout election.  Overall turnout was 55.7%, higher than 2012, and way above 2000 or 1996.  It was lower than 2008 and 2004, so I guess you could call it about average, or maybe a bit above average.

This is what I'm referencing. There were a ton of stories on this. It's the low turnout of Dems, the low turnout in specific states, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

When one talks about "turnout" in the general is that usually measured in absolute number of votes cast or is it supposed to factor in things like % of registered voters?

There's "VAP" which is Voting-age population, or all possible residents like in the former case you're referring to, or "VEP," which is voting-eligible population, that takes into account, well those aren't eligible to vote.  Here's a primer.  Social scientists prefer VEP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.

I knew caucuses sucked ass for representation and availability and whatnot, but I was not prepared for the INCREDIBLY STUPID SYSTEM that Iowa has in their caucus. This whole thing is the best actual representation of Simpson's Paradox I've ever heard of.

  • Let's see. For starters, delegates in some places can be decided in as few as 40 people per value, others over 200, depending on the size of your district - but they are EQUALLY VALUABLE. 
  • Because of the weird breaking out into tiny groups, you get actual delegates decided by coin flips because that one small gym is tied. 
  • Because of the system, the total vote count does not translate into actual delegates, and thus someone could win the popular vote in Iowa and actually not come out with the most delegates - quite easily (this would be that paradox thing I mentioned above)
  • Anyone who cannot come and stand in a gym for hours on a weeknight is basically automatically fucked. Disabilities? Job? Kids? Sorry, you're fucked, fucked, and fucked. 
  • Viability is decided not statewide, but in individual districts, so you can be forced to go to second choice for a candidate even though your candidate is doing just fine statewide.
  • It's also this great fuckery of non-private voting. You not only stand up where you want to vote, you can get yelled at to come to someone else's side. 

And no, before folks ask - it has nothing to do with whoever is doing well (I heard Sanders and Buttigieg are doing okay so far in really early results, but that's about par for the course). This is fuckwittery, and a giant peer pressure game of red rover across the state is not a good way to choose representation. 
 

The one good thing is that it has this pseudo-shitty version of ranked choice voting, except that it's only 2nd choice and that's it. And that's good and all, but literally everything else about it is complete garbage. It's expensive, time-consuming, crowd influenced bullshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...