• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
In fact, in 1968 only 12 states had primaries. The feeling was that nominating a candidate was better left to the more influential members of the party, and this really didn't change until recently. The fact that there are so many superdelegates is a holdover from the past 200 years of this country. What led to so many states having primaries was the 1968 convention with Humphrey, who won no primaries but got the nomination anyway.

The idea that people should even vote at all within the party came from the early progressive movement.
Didn't Andrew Jackson win by making his entire election platform against caucusing system or "King Caucus" as he called it? By around his time people thought of elections as completely corrupt affairs. I think only after he became president that more and more states started adopting the primary system.
 

Yoda

Member
Maybe the FDA appointment should be a lifetime role too then, that way they'll never need to work anywhere else again. Unimpeachable.

Or just maybe we can find some kind of elusive creature (academic) which understand medicine and pharmacology enough to create sane testing and pricing policy but doesn't have a giant conflict of interest in both of those areas being watered down or used to keep out new entrants into the market?
 

benjipwns

Banned
Didn't Andrew Jackson win by making his entire election platform against caucusing system or "King Caucus" as he called it? By around his time people thought of elections as completely corrupt affairs. I think only after he became president that more and more states started adopting the primary system.
No, the primaries didn't come about until 1912.

"King Caucus" was the Congressional Caucus which originally nominated candidates by having the parties Congressional members gather while in Washington and pick the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. Jackson effectively cleared that out (in the wake of the system shattering during the one-party Democratic-Republican state leading into 1824) for the Convention system after Clay and Q. Adams stole the Presidency from him.

Interestingly, not only was Q. Adams also opposed to the Caucus system, but the Jacksonians/Democrats wound up being the third party to hold a nominating convention after the Anti-Masons and National Republicans despite being the ones originally most in favor of it. (All three also held their conventions in the same exact building.)
 

Diablos

Member
I agree with Bill Clinton when he says Bernie supporters are basically the left-wing Tea Party, but I don't know if he should have come out and said it. Hillary will need them if she wins the nomination.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The idea that only career academics who intend to return to career academia after any given term in a public role should be viable considerations for public policy and regulatory positions, is nonsensical.
Yeah, they'll use their new found name recognition to profit. Especially if they run Masters in Public Administration programs. Or join the Kennedy School.
 

Wall

Member
Actually, I don't have the links right now, but there's evidence that this is the opposite of true. At least in finance, banks hire more during periods of more aggressive regulatory enforcement.

This is contrarian, but it makes sense if you think about it. Let's say you're a regulator. If you're weak on your targets, they might hire you because they like you, I guess. But if you're extremely tough on them, they need to hire you so that you can tell them what to do in order to avoid getting punished. So the incentive for you if you want to get a job afterwards is to be so aggressive in crafting regulations that they need your help just to avoid getting sanctioned.

I could see a bank wanting to hire a regulator, regardless of that person's conduct while at a regulatory agency, purely on the basis of the regulator having expertise regarding how a regulatory agency might operate.

The issue really is more cultural and ideological, though. For example, the issue during the 1998-2008 period in finance was one of what is called "cognitive capture". The idea became widespread during this period that newly developed computer models were sufficient to handle risk, so crashes such as what occurred in 2008 were impossible. As a result, regulators took a lax approach to regulating the financial services industry because reports from financial services companies generally were taken at face value. The idea that a crisis of like 2008 could happen was inconceivable. A major reason for this oversight was that everyone thought the same way about finance, and one of the major reasons everyone though the same way about finance was that the regulators largely came from financial backgrounds.

The problem is perhaps easier to see if you look at the oil industry and the EPA. In the case of the oil industry, there is a history of that industry promoting the idea that environmental concerns such as global warming are not real. I would say that, culturally, the fossil fuel industry is hostile to the very idea of the EPA. And in fact, the EPA being staffed with individuals from the industries the EPA is supposed to regulate became a major issue during the Bush administration.

Admittedly, the FDA is less of a clear cut case because there genereally aren't ideologically motivated disagreements within the biological and medical sciences as there are in economics, finance, and sciences related to the EPA.
 
I agree with Bill Clinton when he says Bernie supporters are basically the left-wing Tea Party, but I don't know if he should have come out and said it. Hillary will need them if she wins the nomination.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's to be gained by the in-fighting. Calling members of your own party illogical or fanatical isn't a great idea when you need them to vote for you.
 

Killer Mike noooooooo.


Apparently Killer Mike says that's what a woman had said to him about why she doesn't support Hillary. Hopefully context will clear things up, because if not that's a pretty cringe-y statement.

Edit- full quote:

"But I talked to Jane Elliot a few weeks ago and asked who she was supporting and Jane said 'Michael, having a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president of the United States. You have to have policy that's reflective of social justice.'"
 

johnsmith

remember me
Killer Mike noooooooo.


Apparently Killer Mike says that's what a woman had said to him about why she doesn't support Hillary. Hopefully context will clear things up, because if not that's a pretty cringe-y statement.

Edit- full quote:

"But I talked to Jane Elliot a few weeks ago and asked who she was supporting and Jane said 'Michael, having a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president of the United States. You have to have policy that's reflective of social justice.'"

That's the Donald J Trump "she called him a pussy. I didn't call him a pussy" defense.
 
Jackson effectively cleared that out (in the wake of the system shattering during the one-party Democratic-Republican state leading into 1824) for the Convention system after Clay and Q. Adams stole the Presidency from him.
Man, the founders sucked ass. Who would want a democracy where common people don't know what they're getting. Oh that's right, the slave owners.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Aside: interesting news that no one seems to be talking about

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-to-this-massive-change-in-criminal-justice/

After decades of growth, the U.S. imprisonment rate has been declining for the past six years. Hidden within this welcome overall trend is a sizable and surprising racial disparity: African-Americans are benefitting from the national de-incarceration trend but whites are serving time at increasingly higher rates.

The pattern of results, evident in a series of reports from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is most stark among women. Since 2000, the imprisonment rate among African-American women has dropped 47 percent, while the rate among white women has risen by 56 percent. These trends have combined to shrink the racial disparity in women’s imprisonment by two-thirds.

A similar pattern emerges for men, who compose a much larger share of the prison population. The rate of imprisonment among African-American men remains very high, but nonetheless it has tumbled 22 percent since 2000. The rate for white men in contrast is 4 percent higher than it was in 2000. As a result, the racial disparity has shrunk by nearly one quarter.

Huh.
 

Wall

Member
Also, for some context, Sanders isn't the only Senator opposing Califf's nomination. Manchin (D), Markey (D), and Ayotte (R) also are raising objections. Manchin apparently is threatening a filibuster. I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but I find it interesting that Sanders is hardly alone in his objections. From the sound of it, it seems like the Republicans are more receptive to Califf than the Democrats.

http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/28/senator-threatens-robert-califf-filibuster/
 

johnsmith

remember me
jbVr5bO.png


Sputnik News, huh? That sounds legit.

"Sputnik is an international multimedia service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013"

Oh.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Mike was quoting Jane Elliot. I'm sure Hillary's camp will run with this but I see no reason to throw a flag on the play.

Wow. Way to take the man out of context.

No, it's way too similar, as said earlier, of attacking via quoting someone like Trump did with the "Pussy" line.

Unless it was used as a means of trying to deescalate a narrative of some type. I'd have to see the fuller context, which may retract this post.


jbVr5bO.png


Sputnik News, huh? That sounds legit.

"Sputnik is an international multimedia service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013"

Oh.

I had to unsub from /r/politics
It's fucking unreadable now.
 

Makai

Member
jbVr5bO.png


Sputnik News, huh? That sounds legit.

"Sputnik is an international multimedia service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013"

Oh.
lol. Come on, it's just like their BBC
 
Surprised they didn't just say $5M, since that's the full amount that was recently announced that's being spent by her SuperPAC in the run-up to Super Tuesday.

Of course the other $4.5M is aimed at driving minority voter turnout.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Neurosurgeon and GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson accused Muslims who both adhere to Islamic law and embrace American values of being "schizophrenic."

In an interview Monday with Breitbart News' Stephen K. Bannon, Carson was asked whether he believes Muslims who are "Sharia adherent" can also participate in a Democratic society governed by the rule of law.

"Only if they're schizophrenic," Carson said. "I don't see how they can do it otherwise, because they have two different philosophies boring at you [that contradict each other]. That would be very difficult."

Oh Ben... Such plans for you in the primary thread...
 

benjipwns

Banned
benji, tell us about the old primary system.
Candidates tended not to run, until the 1940s.

Many times stand-in favorite sons were used, this was how LBJ ran most of his bids.

Often, one or two states were seen as the deciders, generally New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Oregon and California were the states where anything "actual" happened. JFK poured his family and money into Wisconsin to show he could win as a Catholic, and knock Humphrey out of the race.

Some candidates created their candidacies out of the primaries, Harold Stassen, Hubert Humphrey, Estes Kefauver, Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, etc. all tried to use primary wins as "free media" and all of them lost the nomination because the primaries didn't dispense enough delegates. In 1968, Humphrey didn't win any of 14 primaries (got 2% of the vote) but most agree he would have won the nomination even had RFK lived as HHH had almost as many delegates as RFK and Eugene McCarthy combined. He won 1760-601-147-67-17-13. (HHH-McCarthy-McGovern-Phillips-Moore-Ted Kennedy.) McCarthy never had a chance because the Kennedy delegates refused to vote for him and that's how McGovern's presidential ambitions got turned into a career.

In 1952, only 12 states held GOP primaries. Eisenhower took five, Taft took five, Warren won his home state of California and Stassen his of Minnesota. Thomas Dewey and Henry Cabot Lodge claimed Taft had stolen the delegate slates of many states, so had the convention vote to get rid of the delegates and put Eisenhower delegates in their place, it won narrowly and Eisenhower relatively coasted to the nomination. Dewey then placed Nixon on the ticket.

14 states held Democratic primaries. Adlai Stevenson didn't win any or run in any. Estes Kefauver won 12 of them. Kefauver entered the convention with 340 out of 1230 delegates. Stevenson got 273 on the first ballot. Stevenson won on the third ballot 618-275-261. (Richard Russell third.) And to balance the northern progressive Stevenson picked a segregationist from Alabama for the VP slot.

1972 didn't see a full slate of primaries yet and was only contested really on the Democratic side. The lack of a full slate led to a huge disconnect between the popular vote % and delegate count:
Humphrey - 26% - 67
McGovern - 25% - 1729
Wallace - 24% - 382
Muskie - 12% - 25
Scoop Jackson - 3% - 525
Chisholm - 3% - 152

1976 are considered the first real primaries because it was the first cycle every state held a primary, it was contested in both parties AND it determined the outcome. (Carter won 30 states, Ford won 27-23. Both got the nomination, though there were enough undecided delegates elected that Reagan could have won at the convention. Carter went into the convention with a clear majority of elected delegates.)
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Just like a penis does not qualify you to be president a uterus does not either. The penis is a requirement however.

He said having one doesn't qualify you, he didn't say no one with one is qualified
 

benjipwns

Banned
RFK had won only Indiana and Nebraska before the day of his murder. There was only one primary remaining after it. Including his victories that day, he had 393 delegates to 561 for Humphrey and 258 for McCarthy. 1312 were needed for nomination.

The Party, unions, etc. were not RFK or Kennedy fans. Many were still controlled by LBJ and Senators effectively. And LBJ also controlled the state of things in Vietnam...until Nixon started to meddle.

RFK had also staked out positions quite far to the left of the party base. Much like McGovern.
 

Makai

Member
Bush is in last place nationally. Hilarious that he's still in. Is it too late if he drops out after Flordia and Kasich drops out after Ohio?
 

benjipwns

Banned
One way to think of it, is that Hillary is Humphrey, RFK and McCarthy are like if Warren and Sanders both ran, and both continually tried to outflank each other on the left on nearly every issue as their primary battle went on, while completely ignoring all the powerbrokers in the Party who Hillary spent all her time schmoozing.

Who then were ten times as powerful as they are now. And controlled two-thirds of the delegates.

EDIT: Oh, and Obama hates Warren so much he'd have her killed like he had her brother killed in Dallas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom