metalslimer
Member
Caucuses are pretty stupid. I don't know if we could ever get all 50 states to have primaries though
-
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 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
I hope so. My brother finally took the step last night and said he would never vote for Hillary. He voted Gore/Kerry/Obama/Obama. I asked him and he doesn't spend any times on r/politics (when it was pretty bad) or on r/sandersforpresident. He's in some kind of echo chamber, though, I think.
Anecdotal, I know. It isn't just people on the internet though.
Remember when the GOP way back in the day said they might create a "permanent" Republican majority and everyone laughed at them, for the most part?
I think this might ACTUALLY be the case for the Democrats, if they do maximum damage and Trump says even more hateful/stupid shit during the GE.
It's less about empowering but more about informing. Name recognition is essentially an insurmountable obstacle, which severely limits the amount of available candidates. Despite being an utter shitstain, Cruz is still more reasonable than Trump. But over and over, he's performed better in caucuses than in primaries because many voters just didn't know who he was.
Switching the fulcrum of republicanism from a vote to a discussion is more democratic, because it allows the people to more openly discuss and decide who they want to represent them.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
What you're saying then is that the US will become, for a few elections, a one-party system run by the democrats while the republican nominee will be some afterthought that isn't really a viable candidate. I think it's much more likely that the GOP will reinvent themselves before they let that go on for too long. I think Obama won in '08 and '12 as a matter of being a strong candidate, but I think 2016 will be the first year we see that the demographics don't make it possible for anyone but the democrat to win given the GOP's current platform. My argument is that the GOP should get their realignment over with now, or at least lay the groundwork for it, rather than wait 30 years for the bulk of (overt) racists to die off and finally try to get back in the game. The democrats started getting trounced in '68 and didn't fix it until '92 when Bill Clinton pulled the party rightward. The GOP, similarly, needs a candidate who can draw them toward the new center of American politics and I think any party would prefer to do that once it becomes a problem rather than lose elections for two decades and then fix it.
There is no realignment. They shot themselves in the foot. It only took 40 years, but this isn't like back in the 19th century where Parties can rise and fall, and new ones take its place.
metalslimer
Member
Yeah what exactly are the republicans going to realign to? Are there that many republicans who are socially more liberal to make a viable presidential candidate? I mean mitt Romney is about as far center as the party could realistically nominate and he didn't even come close. I guess the play would be to get all those independents who are right leaning but think the party is too crazy for them. Either way this would take decades of a republican candidate not even being viable.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Parties can still adjust their platforms and rebrand themselves, and the republicans need to. Trump is arguably realigning the party as we speak, he's just doing so in completely unhelpful ways.
Manmademan
Member
I think it's absolutely the case. Republicans have permanently lost the black vote and the LGBT vote, and the hispanic vote is pretty much there as well. Outside of maybe florida cubans the GOP has lost them completely with their language and messaging over the immigration issue. If hispanic voting participation was anywhere near their actual percentage of the population, the republican party would ALREADY be marginalized.
That's exactly what happens.
Reinvent yourself how? using what? Black voters are gone permanently. Most latinos are gone permanently. Gay voters are gone permanently. Women have seen full well what kind of fuckery goes on with republicans when they win elections and shut down planned parenthood out of spite. This isn't something that can be reversed with an ad campaign or a friendly candidate. Being branded "the racist lunatic party" is something that will stick with them.
See the above. There is no "realignment" that can be done. The damage is simply too extensive among the demographics that the GOP has lost. Do you think they can pretend they were "just kidding!" about shutting down planned parenthood and everything is forgiven?
as for your examples, you're focusing on presidential elections. Democrats controlled both houses of congress year after year when you said they were getting "trounced." The GOP's position would be far worse- not just irrelevant in presidential contests, but the vast majority of house, senate, and gubernatorial races for a decade or more. It is absolutely NOT a viable position for them to be in.
User 463088
Banned
I feel like you're confusing the function of electing with the function of campaigning. The function of a campaign is to educate people on who they should support. The function of an election, in this case the actual mechanics of casting your ballot, is to simply make your decision official. In fact, many states have electioneering laws to prevent the "discussion" at the voting booth that you're calling for.
Caucuses suck because they do not represent one person, one vote, at least not in the traditional sense. It's entirely possible for a person to lose the popular vote in a state but win the caucus, if their supporters are more spread out instead of focused. Because caucuses do not always allocate delegates based on population, you reward partisans instead of people. Imagine if we selected electoral votes by congressional district or through a caucus. States that are solidly Democratic because of urban centers would lose out completely: I'm looking at you Pennsylvania and Michigan. (Actually nearly all Blue states...) I have zero doubt in my mind that Bernie would have won Iowa had it been one person, one vote.
Caucuses suck because they disenfranchise people. You have to commit to be at a particular place at a particular time. You, typically, can't vote early. If you can't find child care, you're screwed. If you have to work, you're screwed. Transportation? You're screwed.
Caucuses suck because of the entire idea that your ballot shouldn't be secret. There is no reason for a person to have to go in and justify who they wish to vote for to a group of people. You want to do that, then volunteer for your candidate. A person should be free to vote in private without fear of intimidation. To say otherwise is arguing that a person must justify their vote for some reason. That's not something I think we should force people to do, because, in and of itself, it acts as a method of disenfranchisement. If a person knows that his/her neighbors are voting a certain way, and they don't want to make waves, they may refuse to be part of the process entirely, simply to "save face" or prevent themselves from creating an uncomfortable situation.
Also, Cruz has done very well in caucuses.
It's personality. A substantial amount of voters just don't trust Clinton, and people who believe they wouldn't suffer under a GOP presidency (older white voters and edgy millennials), won't vote in 2016. Some might vote for Trump, but the Sanders campaign has positioned itself to be so opposite to him that I don't see this happening en masse.
That said, I've met a large amount of young Republicans who would gladly vote for Clinton over Trump. The 90s era disdain that the right had for her hasn't really bled down to millennials. Because young republicans (at least those in college) tend to be socially liberal, they don't find much fault in her platform.
Adam, I'm very aware. Re-read my post. Cruz succeeds in caucuses because it allows Trump supporters who haven't heard of Cruz to learn what he stands for. You seem so certain that the election process should not involve education, but why is that? We want our voters to be as aware as possible when they make their decision. All of the grievances you have with the system would be fixed by more flexible hours, proportional representation based on precinct size, and the option of early voting.
Manmademan
Member
LOL! Trump isn't realigning anything! He's simply appealing to the voters that the GOP was already depending on.
Trump is NOT building some new coalition of racists that wasn't there. He's simply gotten them to the point where they aren't willing to compromise on a candidate that only gives lip service to the things they want.
Macho Madness
Member
Vermont has no meaningful party affiliation but:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-donald-trump-ben-carson/story?id=35044135
And he was required to become one under NH rules: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...anders-declares-democrat-nh-primary/75242938/
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I too am of the opinion that the GOP can't pivot immediately by ditching Trump. They would become not just non-viable, but possibly completely dead once the white nationalism/evangelism core re-constructs their own party and it becomes the major second party in the nation.
The core Republicans who run the party apparatus and who actually want to wage a class war will have no place to go if the Trump Party (let's call them that for brevity's sake) emerges as a legitimate party after an immediate split. Their ideas will be dead politically in the U.S., and they know it.
They're going to have to take the L in big cities and in 2/3 of the branches of national government for the next two decades as an alternative. It is what it is.
The core Republicans who run the party apparatus and who actually want to wage a class war will have no place to go if the Trump Party (let's call them that for brevity's sake) emerges as a legitimate party after an immediate split. Their ideas will be dead politically in the U.S., and they know it.
They're going to have to take the L in big cities and in 2/3 of the branches of national government for the next two decades as an alternative. It is what it is.
Based on this, I'd expect the Dems to control some more Governoships by 2020-2022.
The state legislatures though, that's a bit of a tall order.
User 463088
Banned
Ya, but a few weeks ago he admitted he only ran as a Democrat because it was the best way for him to get his name out there and to fund raise. If he loses, he's going to stay an Independent. He's shown no loyalty to the party before, and he sure as shit doesn't seem the type to want to stay a member of the party that just rejected him. He takes DSCC money, though, without any problem.
He was made a Super before he announced his candidacy last January, I believe at the Rules Committee meeting where delegate allocations were decided. (I'm like 90% sure on that.)
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I would agree that it's probably too late. If they don't try something drastic, though, I think they're going to watch their party fade into obscurity as the democrats expand and eventually bud off into two distinct parties. I'd imagine they don't believe that it's really over, though, and think 2016 is just some fluke. Trump and Cruz being their #1 and #2 should be seriously concerning to the direction of the party into 2020 and beyond, and I can't imagine the Jeb Bush's of the party continuing to associate with it for much longer.
Manmademan said:
Look at what he's had to say about the Iraq War. He's definitely broken from the party line on a number of issues, and specifically regarding the racism he's made it into something a lot more volatile, prevalent and hard to ignore. If he weren't taking the party in a direction the republicans don't want to go in, they wouldn't be terrified of his candidacy.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I mentioned previously that the DNC should offer what they typically pay for running a caucus to the state to switch over to a Primary. Kind of split the cost a bit.
User 463088
Banned
I would love to know how much they actually do cost. Most of the sites are probably not rented out. Schools, firehouses, whatever probably don't charge the local Democratic party to use them. The people that run them tend to be volunteers. I can't think they would cost that much. The issue is primary elections/caucuses aren't really elections at all, at least not in the traditional sense. They're just party functions. It's all a big mess. : air horn :
He has certainly done a lot to stop that at his rallies.
Manmademan
Member
You're confusing "breaking with the party line" with actually rebranding and building new coalitions.
What Trump is doing is making it obvious that the interests of the establishment/donors and the interests of the base were two different things. The establishment needed the money of the wealthy donors, and the votes of the base.
SO, the party establishment would use coded racist language and policy to get the base to go along with economic and political messages that donors wanted. Some people get things confused by assuming ALL republicans care about whether the iraq war was a good idea, or whether trickle down economics works.
Aint so. The base doesn't give a shit as long as minorities aren't getting free stuff and women aren't getting abortions. Trump isn't in a position where he has to care what the donors want- so he's free to break with the party line on certain things like tax policy or criticizing the iraq war. He's free to lambast H1-B's and foreign trade deals as bad calls. And the base loves this.
This is not a realignment. This is not a rebranding. This is not bringing new voters in. This is simply making the division of interests that already existed within the party clearer.
User 463088
Banned
Better late than pregnant.
Actually, I would have been bitching about them being undemocratic no matter who won. I did it when Hillary won Iowa and Nevada. They're stupid, stupid things that are just terrible. I've never been a fan of them. It just so happens that the candidate with whom I most identify has a caucus problem. I, at least, have consistency on this issue from 2008
As to the whining...well, the problem is that the most logical reading of the contests has a pro-Hillary bias. It's like in 2008 when Hillary would win a few states and cut into Obama's lead. It was a nice moral victory, but it didn't really change the calculus of the race that much. That's the benefit of an early lead.
I think the "OMG FRAUD" thing just comes from being inside the bubble. If you're active on Reddit, you're probably surrounded by Bernie people 24/7. I'm sure a lot of them really are in shock that he doesn't do better. I mean, everyone they know loves him, so how could he possibly lose anything. The fault has to lie elsewhere. If Hillary does win, they'll need a come to Jesus moment. I don't know what that will take, though.
Ok, fair enough - my bad on that one.
The come to Jesus moment will be between August and November, when policies start coming out. That's the absolute least of my concerns.
Clinton definitely gives off an aura of being insincere and untrustworthy - and because Sanders wasn't a particularly viable candidate, she hasn't learned from the mistakes of 2008. It doesn't help that the Clintons have been repeatedly quoted as seeing politics as a war in which they will say or do anything it takes to win (Game Change, 2008 Vanity Fair retrospective on Clinton campaign, etc). That's the part that bugs people subconsciously I think - Clinton deliberately hides who she really is because of what happened during Bill's campaign / presidency, and it (rightfully) comes across as someone who is hiding something and saying whatever it takes to get elected. Mind you, I've been saying for months now that Clinton should just be herself and she would be immensely more liked.
LOL. That will never happen. People have too short of a memory span, and frankly, the economy has always, when push comes to shove, been the driving force for actual general election votes. I am hesitant to go against that until we have at least one or two elections where identity politics > wallets.
I'd give the GOP a 70-75% chance currently to get the 2020 presidency. It's extremely hard to win 4 presidential elections in a row for a party. If we don't get another dumb luck economic boom (IE, internet) - the current stratification of the economic recovery will get the party in power annihilated in 2020. Americans don't like parties staying in power that long. Period.
Yeah; y'all are in wishful thinking land. A moderate republican who sticks to using just abortion and trans rights as their social conservatism (and moved to the left on racial issues) would rip the Latino and black vote from the Democrats before their heads could spin. People really forget that blacks / latinos are FAR more socially conservative than typical white progressives and most Democrats. In 2004, the same idea was floated except for the GOP. That was 12 years ago. Things change fast.
Also, a single attack in this country from ISIS between August and November basically hands this election to the GOP.
Y'all do realize the ONLY thing the Democrats hold is the presidency, right? The GOP holds 30/50 governorships, 30/50 state legislatures, the House, the Senate, and has a tie on the Supreme Court. The Democrats have been getting their asses kicked for the better part of a decade. As for the demographics fight - a Bush (non Trump) / Haley ticket would promptly put almost all the demographics they worry about into play. Bush would be able to mobilize a fairly decent Latino vote - especially when he starts cutting ads in Spanish, trots out his wife, and points out his degree is in Latin American affairs. Haley would put Asian-Americans into some play as well (and she could point out that her husband is in the military, and she can tap into that when it comes to foreign intervention).
It's all a pendulum, and while it has been swinging our way and is higher than it has been in a while, do not fool yourselves into thinking this is the new steady state.
User 463088
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What's the dem delegate counts after yesterday's wipeouts of Clinton
User 463088
Banned
Hillary 1265
Bernie 1039
+226 for Hillary.
(That's the projection from The Green Papers, which has been fairly accurate once all is said and done).
With Supers:
Hillary 1736
Bernie 1068.5
(And, yes, that is correct. Bernie has 1/2 of a SuperDelegate, because Democrats Abroad Superdelegates are only worth a 1/2 of a delegate. )
https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/714084408291115008
What do you mean its too early?!
What the fuck?
What do you mean its too early?!
What the fuck?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
There's no evidence that this is why Cruz does well in caucuses. I would argue the lack of secrecy means people who would be embarrassed to vote for Trump don't go. I've met a few of them here, and they're not nearly as rabid as the rally folks are. They're ashamed of their vote, but a caucus just makes them not participate.
And there's no reason for "name recognition" being an issue. Voters should be as informed as they choose to be, and that's on other candidates to fix. Never blame the voters. It's as bad as blaming customers for a failing business.
Blanche4Prez
Lindsey Graham already pulled out, though.
User 463088
Banned
Manmademan
Member
Oh so you're a joke poster! Why didn't you say so! Republicans have run plenty of moderate republicans for the presidency. H.W. Bush in 88, Dole in 96, G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. All of them lost the black vote by ridiculous 92-8 margins to democrats. The view that the republican party is anti-black is SO ingrained into black voters that your actual blackness will come into question by voting republican. This is not a joke, this is a thing that happens. Black Voters are GONE.
The republican party actually USED to do quite well with latinos. GWB had about 40% of the hispanic vote and was notable for his outreach there. This was BEFORE the population explosion and susequent horrific racist language in response by the GOP. By 2012 Romney who by any measure is a moderate and not a racist only had 27%. It's going to be a lot lower this year and will keep on plummeting as republicans can't seem to stop doubling down on stupidity re: latinos.
Once you have been branded as catering to racists, it is not easy to turn that around. You may as well suggest republicans are going to win back the gay vote after trying everything they could to ban gay marriage nationwide.
.
Black voters are religious, but not socially conservative. Don't confuse the two. There is most certainly an anti-gay bias in that community that goes back to biblical reasons, but the comparison stops there.
oh please.
Some of us have been paying attention for more than five minutes, so we know these things. you may be interested to know that:
1.) The GOP's current hold on the house and senate goes back to the backlash of the 2010 elections, which won't be happening again. All current estimates have the GOP losing the senate this year and it will take a miracle for them to hold onto it.
2.) The supreme court would be democratic right now if not for mcconnell obstructing a nomination. No republican has been nominated to the bench in over ten years.
3.) the next census- which will determine how congressional districts are drawn- will take place in 2020 which is a presidential year, where democrats overperform. This will reverse a lot of the redistricting damage done in 2010, which was an off year where republicans overperformed.
You may want to study a bit more before you roll in and attempt to drop knowledge, son.
User 463088
Banned
You know why you need a firewall? So you don't have to Feel the Bern.
Bernie REKT.
: air horn :
Mhmm. These caucus states were basically Sanders' "South", so to speak. She just needs to keep the margin close in Wisconsin(10-15% is alright), then run up the margins in New York(15%+), Maryland(25-30%) and Pennsylvania(15%+) and she should be good.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Same. I know my precient is a government building. So I really do wonder the true difference in costs.
Macho Madness
Member
I think the booing thing is weird because obviously Bernie wants to win so he's going to try but I hope he does keep himself grounded a little and understand this is still a steep uphill battle. He would ultimately rather have Hillary than Trump, that's not a question.
Obama had the best response to booing:
https://youtu.be/X4iYODJyV_g
And he would do it almost every time. I know Obama's ideas aren't often perfect, Bernie but trust me you can steal this one.
Obama had the best response to booing:
https://youtu.be/X4iYODJyV_g
And he would do it almost every time. I know Obama's ideas aren't often perfect, Bernie but trust me you can steal this one.
RustyNails
Member
Anyone have the link to an updated dem primary results heatmap from 538? I think that can show how WI will go.
Black Republican
Member
Poligaf is a mess!
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Was there some booing incident?
User 463088
Banned
But a hot mess, right?
Macho Madness
Member
His crowd boos when he brings her up at his rallies. Last month, he shut them down when they did it. Now he doesn't do it. So Chuck Todd was asking about it.
eBay Huckster
Member
i'm not very convinced that this would swing it to the GOP considering clinton's reputation + advantage on the issue
now a sudden swing into a 1992-esque recession, on the other hand...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked