Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

As said above:

The trouble is that this ignores the very next step of governance. The fact that Sanders is there and you voted for him does not mean you will get his platform: The Socialists and Democrats of your example would then need to form a coalition to actually govern properly and pass policy.

Yes, of course. I don't get his platform; I get an element of his platform, presumably proportional to how many seats he commands in the legislature and therefore the capacity to influence a winning coalition. However, you seem to think that US coalitions form, even prior to elections. They don't, not really. Clinton doesn't have to adopt any of Sanders' platform or compromise in the slightest, other than is necessary for him to bring voters to her. Even then, there's commitment problem; once in office, the president is unassailable, and they have no real incentive to honour their coalition, especially given the incumbency bias. In a parliamentary coalition, if you aren't response to a coalition partner, then they withdraw support and you lose office, so you are necessarily responsive to a broader spectrum.

There's a fair amount of comparative government study on this. It's the main reason why official UN advice for the constitutions of newly governed countries is not to use presidential systems. There's a very strong relationship between the stability of democracy and presidential/parliamentary executive type, for example, in post-colonial Africa. The United States is actually the only presidential country never to have been a dictatorship at least once.

 

[Plumbob]

Nope, the contest is nowhere near close enough.

You're probably right. Why are we debating the merits of open/closed primary votes then? Have they ever had an impact on the outcome?

 

[Crayons]

Starting to think Hillary should drop out and the Dems should just run Biden. I honestly think the Bill Clinton rape accusation could be fatal in the year 2016.

...No. I think Americans are pretty dumb but I don't think they're dumb enough to just hear Trump to speak out of his ass and believe it unconditionally.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I like that both of these answers, in response to



Is basically "because it's our party and if you're not part of our party you don't deserve to vote in our primary."

Pigeon is the only one to even try to articulate why that view is actually going to create better outcomes for the party.

I was on mobile but I'll post more later after I look for housing.

I also want to make a few points on the VOX article from last week about parliments being awesome and its why Canada is doing so well since it think it relates to this and the discussion of the two party system and Carbs invocation of proportional systems.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Suppose you are a permanent minority period. What do you do?

You can be in a party and have some voice, or in none and have less voice.

Membership in the party has no strings. There is no downside.

Being in the party, by itself, does not give you voice. What gives you voice is having the ability to alter outcomes. If you don't have a majority within the Democratic party, you can't do that. Joining serves absolutely no purpose. Of course, not joining doesn't serve much purpose either, but at the very least it indicates discontent.

 

[hawk2025]

Yes, of course. I don't get his platform; I get an element of his platform, presumably proportional to how many seats he commands in the legislature and therefore the capacity to influence a winning coalition. However, you seem to think that US coalitions form, even prior to elections. They don't, not really. Clinton doesn't have to adopt any of Sanders' platform or compromise in the slightest, other than is necessary for him to bring voters to her. Even then, there's commitment problem; once in office, the president is unassailable, and they have no real incentive to honour their coalition, especially given the incumbency bias. In a parliamentary coalition, if you aren't response to a coalition partner, then they withdraw support and you lose office, so you are necessarily responsive to a broader spectrum.

There's a fair amount of comparative government study on this. It's the main reason why official UN advice for the constitutions of newly governed countries is not to use presidential systems. There's a very strong relationship between the stability of democracy and presidential/parliamentary executive type, for example, in post-colonial Africa. The United States is actually the only presidential country never to have been a dictatorship at least once.

Yeah, you won't get any pushback from me: what I said is basically the extent of my devil advocacy on this subject.

 

[Armaros]

Being in the party, by itself, does not give you voice. What gives you voice is having the ability to alter outcomes. If you don't have a majority within the Democratic party, you can't do that. Joining serves absolutely no purpose. Of course, not joining doesn't serve much purpose either, but at the very least it indicates discontent.

That could be applied to any poltical system on the planet.

You don't think there are completely powerless parities in parlimentary systems? Should we shake up the system to force them in a Power position?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well closed primaries probably blocked Bernie Sanders' nomination which is a positive outcome.

He's lost the majority of open primaries as well. I'm in favor of all closed primaries.

There's also a lot of problems with open and closed primaries on local elections that I feel too often isn't discussed.

 

[BlastProcessing]

The Democratic and Republican parties aren't "necessary" institutions. They're enabled by a deeply flawed political constitution. I think the same is largely true of unions; we only need them to exist because workers have no credible exit option and so firms are in a position of advantage.



I think there are a lot of industries where post-entry closed shop (I think it's called union shop in the United States?) is preferable to other union structures, yes.

I would say the parties are necessary precisely because of the flawed political constitution. They are a feature, not a bug.

If Unions can require membership for voting, why can't political parties? They are fundamentally similar.

 

[Suikoguy]

Being in the party, by itself, does not give you voice. What gives you voice is having the ability to alter outcomes. If you don't have a majority within the Democratic party, you can't do that. Joining serves absolutely no purpose. Of course, not joining doesn't serve much purpose either, but at the very least it indicates discontent.

You seem to subscribe to the mythical protest voting.
How about registering Democrat and voting for Sanders. Would that not show more protest than being independant and not voting?

 

[nature boy]

Reid: 'Hell no' to VP pick from state with a Republican governor

 

[User 463088]

I like that both of these answers, in response to



Is basically "because it's our party and if you're not part of our party you don't deserve to vote in our primary."

Pigeon is the only one to even try to articulate why that view is actually going to create better outcomes for the party.

Well, I'm not going to argue a point I don't agree with. I do not believe that opening primaries to anyone and everyone would result in us selecting a better Democrat to run the party and the country!

Voting in a primary is not just about who is going to be at the top of the ticket. It's about crafting a party platform that, in theory, the entire party is going to run on. So, yes, I think that should be restricted to members of the actual party. Again, if you want to have a say in who the nominee is...join the party.

Again, primaries are not elections. That's why a caucus is not unconstitutional.These are party events. If these were elections, I'd agree with you. That's why I support universal voter registration, no requirement absentee/mail/early voting, and same day registration for actual elections.

I don't want to use the word "more entitled" to explain why I think we should limit primary access to members of the party, but we're the people who have to run on the platform that is constructed. If people want a say in that, that's totally great. Join the party. Announce that you are in support of our aims, and we'll happily listen to what you have to say. People coming into the tent can make the party stronger. We're happy to have you.

What I'm not happy with is people who feel the need to vote in a primary to screw over the person the actual members of the party want. (ie strategic voting). This works on both sides. In a total open system. the Democrats could fuck over the GOP in NY, for example, because we outnumber the GOP. The same could be true in states that lean heavily towards the GOP.

A closed primary that allows ample time for people to switch party registration is entirely fair. 30 days before the election is, to me at least, a good enough cut off for people to make sure they know which way they want to go.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The fact that people are on this train and the majority of European political parties require paid dues to vote for party leadership is strange.

It's acceptable for European parties because (most) European countries have proportional systems. If you don't like the leader of X leftwing party, you can vote for Y leftwing party. Therefore, parties have an incentive to select broadly appealing leaders, or at least appealing to any potential coalition partners, as I was pointing out to pigeon. Having parties be open isn't as necessary (although I still favour Open List PR, the best electoral system by far). It's only necessary for America (and some other countries, like the United Kingdom, although most to a lesser extent than America because America's party institutionalization is particularly bad) because you can't exercise an alternative choice. If you don't like the leader of X leftwing party... you're fucked, because there is not and never will be an alternative viable leftwing party, so you just have to lump it. It makes them singularly unresponsive.

In an ideal world, I'd agree that party organizations ought to be a matter for party members - but that's dependent on parties being simply instrumental tools of political organizations that are subject to competition and necessarily have to be responsive. America is not that world. The Republicans and the Democrats have no real competition in the sense that very few voters are genuine R-D swing voters. They therefore have no real reason to be responsive to anyone who isn't one of those very few voters (and even then, only in swing states).

 

[HylianTom]

Starting to think Hillary should drop out and the Dems should just run Biden. I honestly think the Bill Clinton rape accusation could be fatal in the year 2016.

I'm a bit surprised that Trump is spending this bullet so early in the process. If he's yelling about rape in September, it'll be old hat to voters.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I think one benefit of encouraging party registration is that it promotes people getting more involved, since they will potentially feel like more is at stake while they're work with and for the party. We can noticeably observe that a lot of Bernie's independent support largely doesn't care about the party or even the platform even as the party has been fairly accommodating to them. Being forced to become a democrat to be involved with the party means that you'll have some investment in the pot and that you'll be less likely to either take your ball and leave if you lose and instead channel it towards change inside the party in local elections or meetings. That might be overly optimistic but I think there's value in forcing people to pick a side. It also helps provide a sense of unity for different groups that aren't identical but have generally similar goals.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Reid: 'Hell no' to VP pick from state with a Republican governor

Tim Kaine.

 

[Armaros]

It's acceptable for European parties because (most) European countries have proportional systems. If you don't like the leader of X leftwing party, you can vote for Y leftwing party. Therefore, parties have an incentive to select broadly appealing leaders, or at least appealing to any potential coalition partners, as I was pointing out to pigeon. Having parties be open isn't as necessary (although I still favour Open List PR, the best electoral system by far). It's only necessary for America (and some other countries, like the United Kingdom, although most to a lesser extent than America because America's party institutionalization is particularly bad) because you can't exercise an alternative choice. If you don't like the leader of X leftwing party... you're fucked, because there is not and never will be an alternative viable leftwing party, so you just have to lump it. It makes them singularly unresponsive.

In an ideal world, I'd agree that party organizations ought to be a matter for party members - but that's dependent on parties being simply instrumental tools of political organizations that are subject to competition and necessarily have to be responsive. America is not that world. The Republicans and the Democrats have no real competition in the sense that very few voters are genuine R-D swing voters. They therefore have no real reason to be responsive to anyone who isn't one of those very few voters (and even then, only in swing states).

So you are making excuses for Undemocratic processes.

Those systems still have powerful and powerless parities that keep the same leadership for decades. The GOP and Democratic parties constantly reshuffle leadership as elections come and go.

You care more about the labels of republican and dem more then the ideas from the various caususes within each party.

 

[whyamihere]

Reid: 'Hell no' to VP pick from state with a Republican governor

Again -- Massachusetts Dems could very easily take away Baker's nomination power. It would behoove them to do it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I would say the parties are necessary precisely because of the flawed political constitution. They are a feature, not a bug.

I mean, we just disagree on this point. Once more, given the state of discontent with American politics, which is higher than almost any other developed nation, I think the evidence lies on my side.

If Unions can require membership for voting, why can't political parties? They are fundamentally similar.

I actually just said I think post-entry closed shop works for some industries - that's a structure where any worker employed by a particular firm is automatically a member of the relevant union. This is functionally the same as removing membership for voting, given that membership is automatic. I think this works best in industries with only one or two relatively large unions which have some kind of high barrier to entry in terms of employment, in order to prevent insider-outsider bargaining on behalf of the union screwing over the worst in society, while still getting the best out of stronger worker bargaining. This is pretty analogous to American parties.

If American parties had genuine competition, and were merely parties rather than intrinsic parts of the electoral system, you'd have more of a point. But they're not. They're a cartel, a monopoly; and they need to be broken.

 

[Retromelon]

Starting to think Hillary should drop out and the Dems should just run Biden. I honestly think the Bill Clinton rape accusation could be fatal in the year 2016.

Not gonna happen. Hillary wants the presidency so, so bad. But could you imagine the damage it will do to her favorability after ads like the one on Trump's instagram start blanketing the tv stations? The hilldawgs have a nuke coming down over their heads.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So you are making excuses for Undemocratic processes.

I really don't think many people here read my posts very carefully.

Those systems still have powerful and powerless parities that keep the same leadership for decades. The GOP and Democratic parties constantly reshuffle leadership and elections come and go.

This isn't true in the slightest. Proportional systems see much more variation in leadership than presidential systems do.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Not gonna happen. Hillary wants the presidency so, so bad. But could you imagine the damage it will do to her favorability after ads like the one on Trump's instagram start blanketing the tv stations? The hilldawgs have a nuke coming down over their heads.

How can her favoribility be damaged? It's at basically rock bottom right now.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, I'm not going to argue a point I don't agree with. I do not believe that opening primaries to anyone and everyone would result in us selecting a better Democrat to run the party and the country!

Voting in a primary is not just about who is going to be at the top of the ticket. It's about crafting a party platform that, in theory, the entire party is going to run on. So, yes, I think that should be restricted to members of the actual party. Again, if you want to have a say in who the nominee is...join the party.

Again, primaries are not elections. That's why a caucus is not unconstitutional.These are party events. If these were elections, I'd agree with you. That's why I support universal voter registration, no requirement absentee/mail/early voting, and same day registration for actual elections.

I don't want to use the word "more entitled" to explain why I think we should limit primary access to members of the party, but we're the people who have to run on the platform that is constructed. If people want a say in that, that's totally great. Join the party. Announce that you are in support of our aims, and we'll happily listen to what you have to say. People coming into the tent can make the party stronger. We're happy to have you.

What I'm not happy with is people who feel the need to vote in a primary to screw over the person the actual members of the party want. (ie strategic voting). This works on both sides. In a total open system. the Democrats could fuck over the GOP in NY, for example, because we outnumber the GOP. The same could be true in states that lean heavily towards the GOP.

A closed primary that allows ample time for people to switch party registration is entirely fair. 30 days before the election is, to me at least, a good enough cut off for people to make sure they know which way they want to go.

Right, so you agree we should remove public funding from parties then, yes?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Being in the party, by itself, does not give you voice. What gives you voice is having the ability to alter outcomes. If you don't have a majority within the Democratic party, you can't do that. Joining serves absolutely no purpose. Of course, not joining doesn't serve much purpose either, but at the very least it indicates discontent.

I think your issue is with the system that makes the two-party model dominant. I agree.

Given that it is what we have, the logical choice if you wish to influence policy is to join the party most aligned and spread your views, and encourage other independents to do the same. "Indicating discontent" doesn't do anything. It's like not voting.

In a democracy, no one person has much of a voice. That's why parties exist. In our flawed system, two parties are going to dominate. They aren't immune to ideological shift, as history shows. All those discontent non-party members could have a huge impact if they joined and expressed those views (assuming there is any coherence in those views).

A national campaign to encourage all independents to join a single party (either) and strongly press for a specific issue could have huge consequences.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Centrist journalists that rage about "PC" and yet use the word "white identity politics" amuse me.

We used to call "white identity politics" white nationalism because it's actually white nationalism, but journalists are too politically correct to actually use the words "white nationalism" and offend people.

 

[User 463088]

Right, so you agree we should remove public funding from parties then, yes?

In that primaries should be solely funded by the parties themselves? If that's not what you mean, could you clarify what you're specifically referring to?

If so, I'm of two minds about it. It would be incredibly expensive for the parties. I feel like it would result in a lot more caucuses than primaries because they're so much cheaper. The states already have the mechanisms in place to make Presidential Preference votes fairly easy to run. I don't think I have a problem with the state running the primary, in and of itself. It's not something I've given a ton of thought to, to be honest. I guess we could say the parties had to cover the bill or something. I'd have to think about it.

 

[pigeon]

I think you have the wrong idea of democracy. This story has the parties first: they pick the policy goals, they create social structures that cause people to identify them, and then mobilize those people to achieve the policy goals.

If your parties start in a position of being controlled by a particular set of interests, then all you do is literally entrench that class' interests as the prevailing political social norm. That's pretty harmful. In fact, I think that's what American politics has largely been about for the past thirty years, and why it is in such a bad state. A basic principle ought to be that parties are beholden to people, not the other way round. People shouldn't have to do as parties command, parties ought to be competing for people. Right now, American parties are a cartel [Katz and Mair, yay!].

Parties are people, my friend.</romney>

Ultimately a party is just a very successful interest group, just like any other interest group. It doesn't exist of itself and start picking policy goals, it is made up of people who are motivated enough and dedicated enough to organize and devote time and effort to promoting it.

That is why the first step in my plan was to take control of a major party. A party is a self-perpetuating institution, like a corporation, and so although we may discuss it in terms of having goals and desires of its own, that agenda is largely set by the people who are willing to invest the most in controlling that agenda. So I disagree with your analysis here -- parties do compete for people, but people have to compete for parties too.

Suppose that you are a permanent minority in whatever party you joined. What do you do now?

Advocate?

There are no permanent minorities in politics. Gay issues were a permanent wedge issue until they suddenly became a permanent part of an ascendant coalition. Isn't this how politics works? If you want something, go yell at people until they agree with you, then get them to yell at other people. The difference in America is that you should start by joining a party and yelling at other people in that party.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Federalist: "How anti-white rhetoric is fueling white nationalism."

Black people and Jews are even responsible for white nationalism now

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In that primaries should be solely funded by the parties themselves? If that's not what you mean, could you clarify what you're specifically referring to?

Yes, it is.

If so, I'm of two minds about it. It would be incredibly expensive for the parties. I feel like it would result in a lot more caucuses than primaries because they're so much cheaper. The states already have the mechanisms in place to make Presidential Preference votes fairly easy to run. I don't think I have a problem with the state running the primary, in and of itself. It's not something I've given a ton of thought to, to be honest. I guess we could say the parties had to cover the bill or something. I'd have to think about it.

Let me put it differently: what is the justification for asking the states to cover the bill for the primary system if it is an entirely private affair that does not have any public interest value? Alternatively, if it does have public interest value, why are we justified in restricting it to private Democratic interests?

 

[Coriolanus]

No, no, no.

Pragmatism is not the equivalent of "the ends justify the means", especially since strategically this ridiculous plan of feeding misinformation only undermines proper policy.

Completely absurd and dangerous idea.

Which is entirely irrelevant if one fails to secure the position in the first place.

This is no different from obama's publicly stated view on gay marriage circa 2008.

The dangerous idea is refraining from saying what is needed and letting the the opposition take over. These are not waters for ideological purity.

 

[RastaMentality]

Hillary will probably have to end up hiding Bill but it won't matter since Obama still commands more media power than Trump when he's talking about Trump.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Which is entirely irrelevant if one fails to secure the position in the first place.

This is no different from obama's publicly stated view on gay marriage circa 2008.

The dangerous idea is refraining from saying what is needed and letting the the opposition take over. These are not waters for ideological purity.

Distancing your party from reality to win midterms is a stupid strategy that only seems smart to not smart people like Mitch McConnell. This strategy killed the Republican party by getting W and Trump the nominations despite their clear stupidity.

 

[User 463088]

Going to piggyback on something pigeon mentioned that sparked something in me.

If you're an Independent who fluctuates between parties, you're not going to have a real voice in anything, even if you vote for a particular candidate. So, this time, Bernie's stance on college meets your particular ideology. You vote in the Dem primary, stay an Independent, and he loses. You've lost all leverage to actually get Bernie's ideology as part of the permanent Democratic platform. If, in 4 years, no one runs who shares his viewpoint, you're just a free agent who ain't got no team, mane.

Instead, join the party and advocate for the change you want to see. Bernie has showed us that fighting against everyone isn't a great way to get your voice heard.

 

[Box of Kittens]

The way our two party system has adapted to be able to be compatible with more than two views is that we allow for something like Sanders to happen. Then you guys shit on it and tell him to get in line.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of opposition to Sanders (generally or on PoliGAF). Challenging ideas held by the party at large is a helpful and necessary process. Dislike of Sanders is more because his ideas tend to be unworkable, he has no plan to actually implement them, his "political revolution" is more of a cult of personality, and he attacks the party as an institution, not just party orthodoxy.

 

[Coriolanus]

Distancing your party from reality to win midterms is a stupid strategy that only seems smart to not smart people like Mitch McConnell. This strategy killed the Republican party by getting W and Trump the nominations despite their clear stupidity.

Which is why one shouldn't completely emulate the approach, especially not in a way that is a demographic dead-end.
-
To elaborate: the argument is that it has merits, which is why it should be looked into. That does not mean that it should be wholly copied, applied, and left to run unchecked, but that it should be used and adjusted as needed. To refuse it wholeheartedly is a stupid strategy that only seems smart to not smart people like Every Democrat That Got Booted During The Midterms And Are Most Likely To Get Trounced in 2018.

 

[HylianTom]

Hillary will probably have to end up hiding Bill but it won't matter since Obama still commands more media power than Trump when he's talking about Trump.

I'm really looking forward to the moment when Obama, giving his DNC speech, says something like, "this job is grueling. It takes everything out of you. It doesn't stop. There are no do-overs. And, unlike Hillary, there's no way in bloody hell that Donald Trump is even remotely prepared for what he'd face on a daily basis."

 

[Dan]

If independents are unhappy with the parties, they should join the parties.

Leaving (or not joining) just ensures your view will get less exposure.

But leaving or not joining comes with the added ability to not feel accountable for the results, which is the secret thing many want. To stand on the sidelines criticizing and protesting, and then go "don't look at me" when something goes poorly.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm really looking forward to the moment when Obama, giving his DNC speech, says something like, "this job is grueling. It takes everything out of you. It doesn't stop. There are no do-overs. And, unlike Hillary, there's no way in bloody hell that Donald Trump is even remotely prepared for what he'd face on a daily basis."

Eh I just want him to say"I'm with her" in some part of his speech.

 

[thefro]

Hillary will probably have to end up hiding Bill but it won't matter since Obama still commands more media power than Trump when he's talking about Trump.

That'd be one of the dumber things she can do.

Big Dawg needs to be unleashed on Trump.

 

[GregLombardi]

But leaving or not joining comes with the added ability to not feel accountable for the results, which is the secret thing many want. To stand on the sidelines criticizing and protesting, and then go "don't look at me" when something goes poorly.

This is truth.

A lot of people like to complain, there are far few "doers" in my experience.

 

[User 85168]

Reid: 'Hell no' to VP pick from state with a Republican governor

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton should not pick a senator from a Republican-controlled state as her vice president, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned Monday.

"If we have a Republican governor in any of those states, the answer is not only no, but hell no. I would do whatever I can, and I think most of my Democratic colleagues here would say the same thing," Reid told MSNBC's "AM Joy" when asked about the possibility of Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) or Sherrod Brown (Ohio) being named Clinton's No. 2.

Reid added that he would "yell and scream to stop that."

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Parties are people, my friend.</romney>

Ultimately a party is just a very successful interest group, just like any other interest group. It doesn't exist of itself and start picking policy goals, it is made up of people who are motivated enough and dedicated enough to organize and devote time and effort to promoting it.

Yes, sure. But once you have a particular set of parties with a particular set of interests, your capacity to change those interests is close to zero. After all, the party elite can simply say "no, we're not going to let you do that". What do you do at that point? You can't vote for the other party, because you still have a mild preference for this party, even as the lesser of two evils. So you have to lump it. A lack of party competition means that party policy goals are dictated by the party elite.

But okay, suppose they don't even say that. Suppose you just represent 45% of the party, and some other group 55%. Their nominee wins, and as such not a single one of your policy preferences between the two nominees is selected. Can you do anything about this? No, because again, this party still remains moderately better than the other. This is not true in a proportional parliamentary coalition - you have to compromise, or you can face an election. It's still true if you have an open primary presidential system, unfortunately - but at least the 55% are now popular sentiment and less so party elite sentiment, which is typically corporate sentiment.

That is why the first step in my plan was to take control of a major party. A party is a self-perpetuating institution, like a corporation, and so although we may discuss it in terms of having goals and desires of its own, that agenda is largely set by the people who are willing to invest the most in controlling that agenda. So I disagree with your analysis here -- parties do compete for people, but people have to compete for parties too.

Do you mean invest money, or effort? Because I think your analysis ends up in two very different places depending, and I don't think you want to defend the first one and I don't think the second is true.

Advocate?

There are no permanent minorities in politics. Gay issues were a permanent wedge issue until they suddenly became a permanent part of an ascendant coalition. Isn't this how politics works? If you want something, go yell at people until they agree with you, then get them to yell at other people. The difference in America is that you should start by joining a party and yelling at other people in that party.

Politics runs on money. Gay people don't really threaten financial interests - plenty of the sons and daughters of rich people are gay, gay people can be just as wealthy as straight people (and statistically actually are slightly wealthier than the norm, although I think this is just an artifact of social conservatism being slightly more common amongst the poor and so more gays from low income backgrounds remaining closeted), and no company's bottom line was ever threatened by gay people. That's not diminish the LGBT struggle - it's been absolutely incredible. But I don't think that most lobbyists care either way about the LGBT movement. This is much less true for class interests.

 

[Loudninja]

I think Trump might be peaking to early here lol.

 

[RastaMentality]

Eh I just want him to say"I'm with her" in some part of his speech.

Hope it gets turned into a Twitter clip that gets replayed all over social media.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If all primaries were open, how would you address the south, where minorities are outnumbered by white Republicans, who could effectively just wipe out the minorities in voting. It would let Republicans pick the Democrat nominee in those states, and given that those states, combined, make up an important amount of delegates, it gives a bit too much power to Republicans to pick the Democrat candidate, and also disenfranchise minority Democrats.

And I guess the same is true for places like New York, where Democrats could just pick the Republican candidate.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If all primaries were open, how would you address the south, where minorities are outnumbered by white Republicans, who could effectively just wipe out the minorities in voting. It would let Republicans pick the Democrat nominee in those states, and given that those states, combined, make up an important amount of delegates, it gives a bit too much power to Republicans to pick the Democrat candidate, and also disenfranchise minority Democrats.

And I guess the same is true for places like New York, where Democrats could just pick the Republican candidate.

Same-time primaries. I agree it's fair to restrict voting to one or the other primary, to prevent sabotage voting.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Reid: 'Hell no' to VP pick from state with a Republican governor

#PerezOrBust

 

[Aaron Strife]

Minnesota passed a bill to switch from presidential caucuses to primaries.

Thank Christ, the caucus was such an ordeal.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The Economist is not a fan of Trump.

 

[hawk2025]

Which is entirely irrelevant if one fails to secure the position in the first place.

This is no different from obama's publicly stated view on gay marriage circa 2008.

The dangerous idea is refraining from saying what is needed and letting the the opposition take over. These are not waters for ideological purity.

The Republican Party did this and ended up with utter stupidity, anti-science, anti-evidence policies, alarmism, and Donald Trump.

You'll excuse me for not buying into it.