Hey, NH isn't perfect but it's one of the only retail politics outlets left for prez candidates, so without it there's no potential for an underdog breakout as money will dictate even more as it's about who had the most well funded org vs connected with the most voters.
Our demographics aren't the best, but you do have a populace hardened against political showboating and unimpressed by most candidates.
Hey, NH isn't perfect but it's one of the only retail politics outlets left for prez candidates, so without it there's no potential for an underdog breakout as money will dictate even more as it's about who had the most well funded org vs connected with the most voters.
Our demographics aren't the best, but you do have a populace hardened against political showboating and unimpressed by most candidates.
As far as I'm aware evidence seems to indicate this is not true. I believe from what I read on this that none of the supposed "states with the hardened savvy populaces" are distinguishable in polling on a demographic level from elsewhere in the primary now. Your average white middle class voter in Iowa and your average white middle class voter in California are not meaningfully different in their voting intentions. The race has been essentially fully nationalized.
In some fantastical paradise world, as many people as can get a threshold number of votes from the primaries should be able to run under the Republican/Democrat banners. And then compete in a ranked choice direct election. No more parties getting hijacked in the primaries, you prefer Democrat candidate A, but would prefer Democrat candidate B over Republican A, then you could vote that. Dreams...
Ana Escalante McClain wants to caucus, but bedtime for baby Aldo, who is 18 months, is 7:30pm and the caucuses start at 7. McClain is a small business owner and getting her baby to bed on time is important if she wants to sleep. She does have family in town, but her family is also caucusing. The solution she’s settled on for now is hiring a friend who can’t caucus because she’s an immigrant here on a green card. But it’s an expense not everyone can afford. Claire Davis plans to strap her baby into the carrier, bring a tablet for the four-year-old and get to caucusing. A lot of moms are bootstrapping it, bringing their kids with snacks, toys, games, and iPads and hoping for the best.
But not every mom feels equipped to do that. Many are tired from working all day and need their kids to get to bed on time. Some are sending their partners instead. So many women, privately told me they want to caucus but they just can’t make it work. They don’t have supportive partners or the money for a babysitter. Some have babysitters, but their sitters want to caucus. So, they are staying home.
There are other issues too. A caucus is not a private vote. Women in politically divided marriages or in abusive situations may not feel safe casting a vote that will make their lives harder at home.
The more we see, the more that caucuses are indefensible.
Caucuses sound great in 1833 where most voters are male farmers with low levels of education who feel more comfortable voting verbally than on a written ballot.
Hey, NH isn't perfect but it's one of the only retail politics outlets left for prez candidates, so without it there's no potential for an underdog breakout as money will dictate even more as it's about who had the most well funded org vs connected with the most voters.
Our demographics aren't the best, but you do have a populace hardened against political showboating and unimpressed by most candidates.
As far as I'm aware evidence seems to indicate this is not true. I believe from what I read on this that none of the supposed "states with the hardened savvy populaces" are distinguishable in polling on a demographic level from elsewhere in the primary now. Your average white middle class voter in Iowa and your average white middle class voter in California are not meaningfully different in their voting intentions. The race has been essentially fully nationalized.
Hey, just lived here all my life and there's a reason people like GW Bush never won the primary - people saw through him. It may not be as true today, but growing up telling a presidential candidate to piss off at a diner because you were eating pancakes was pretty common. Bill Clinton also likely would not have been elected without the localized retail of NH, nor would Kasich have posed as much of a challenge. I will say candidates who know they don't offer much as a person increasingly stay away, so we'll see where things go.
Sure as hell didn't see through Trump, and Kasich's 15% (which was less than half of Trump's 35) came from him betting it all there, as shown by him running last or nearly so in the other three early states.
Hey, NH isn't perfect but it's one of the only retail politics outlets left for prez candidates, so without it there's no potential for an underdog breakout as money will dictate even more as it's about who had the most well funded org vs connected with the most voters.
Our demographics aren't the best, but you do have a populace hardened against political showboating and unimpressed by most candidates.
As far as I'm aware evidence seems to indicate this is not true. I believe from what I read on this that none of the supposed "states with the hardened savvy populaces" are distinguishable in polling on a demographic level from elsewhere in the primary now. Your average white middle class voter in Iowa and your average white middle class voter in California are not meaningfully different in their voting intentions. The race has been essentially fully nationalized.
Hey, just lived here all my life and there's a reason people like GW Bush never won the primary - people saw through him. It may not be as true today, but growing up telling a presidential candidate to piss off at a diner because you were eating pancakes was pretty common. Bill Clinton also likely would not have been elected without the localized retail of NH, nor would Kasich have posed as much of a challenge. I will say candidates who know they don't offer much as a person increasingly stay away, so we'll see where things go.
I don't think this is a remotely acceptable reason to choose NH first for a primary in perpetuity, not the least because it's 100% unable to be proven or dis-proven.
There are many other more representative options, or even better just a random lottery.
Sure as hell didn't see through Trump, and Kasich's 15% (which was less than half of Trump's 35) came from him betting it all there, as shown by him running last or nearly so in the other three early states.
I never said we were perfect. Also our Republican party has become a trash fire as of late.
I think Nevada is a reasonable choice given the demographic breakout? Also, you know Vegas would have fun with it.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Split the states into five or six roughly equipopulous groups and have each region vote on the same day, and then every time there's a contested primary whoever went first in the prior contest goes last and everyone else moves up one.
Or do something else. There's innumerable methods that would be less bad than what we're doing now.
I'm just not optimistic about finding a solution unless it's part of a complete constitutional overhaul. The states that get power from the status quo aren't going to give that up willingly, especially when one of our political parties also benefits.
Split the states into five or six roughly equipopulous groups and have each region vote on the same day, and then every time there's a contested primary whoever went first in the prior contest goes last and everyone else moves up one.
Or do something else. There's innumerable methods that would be less bad than what we're doing now.
I'm just not optimistic about finding a solution unless it's part of a complete constitutional overhaul. The states that get power from the status quo aren't going to give that up willingly, especially when one of our political parties also benefits.
First we ought to grapple with why Iowa is first anyway
It wasn’t about their EVs back then
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I wasn't sure where else this would be considered on topic, so hopefully it fits here.
Would returning to the "VP is the second most electoral college votes" (fuck the electoral college) do anything to interrupt our current first past the post system?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I wasn't sure where else this would be considered on topic, so hopefully it fits here.
Would returning to the "VP is the second most electoral college votes" (fuck the electoral college) do anything to interrupt our current first past the post system?
I wasn't sure where else this would be considered on topic, so hopefully it fits here.
Would returning to the "VP is the second most electoral college votes" (fuck the electoral college) do anything to interrupt our current first past the post system?
No.
You think Trump in unimpeachable now? Just think if that vote would have directly handed power to the other party. VPs basically have the power the President lets them have and very little actual statutory power.
Without something like ranked choice we're pretty doomed to two party for major races.
I wasn't sure where else this would be considered on topic, so hopefully it fits here.
Would returning to the "VP is the second most electoral college votes" (fuck the electoral college) do anything to interrupt our current first past the post system?
No.
You think Trump in unimpeachable now? Just think if that vote would have directly handed power to the other party. VPs basically have the power the President lets them have and very little actual statutory power.
Without something like ranked choice we're pretty doomed to two party for major races.
Edit: Moniker: Ewww. Accurate but ewww.
Actually, Clinton would have control over the Senate agenda in that situation, as President of the Senate.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I wasn't sure where else this would be considered on topic, so hopefully it fits here.
Would returning to the "VP is the second most electoral college votes" (fuck the electoral college) do anything to interrupt our current first past the post system?
No.
You think Trump in unimpeachable now? Just think if that vote would have directly handed power to the other party. VPs basically have the power the President lets them have and very little actual statutory power.
Without something like ranked choice we're pretty doomed to two party for major races.
Edit: Moniker: Ewww. Accurate but ewww.
Actually, Clinton would have control over the Senate agenda in that situation, as President of the Senate.
And immediately overruled in every instance by the Senate majority, which would then go on like it has been.
In interviews, three caucus volunteers described serious concerns about rushed preparations for the Feb. 22 election, including insufficient training for a newly-adopted electronic vote-tally system and confusing instructions on how to administer the caucuses. There are also unanswered questions about the security of Internet connections at some 2,000 precinct sites that will transmit results to a central “war room” set up by the Nevada Democratic Party.
Some volunteers who will help run caucuses at precinct locations said they have not been trained on iPads that the party purchased to enter and transmit vote counts. Party officials scrambled to streamline their vote reporting system — settling on Google forms accessible through a saved link on the iPads — after scrapping a pair of apps they’d been planning to use until a similar app caused the fiasco in Iowa two weeks ago.
The volunteers also said the party has not provided sufficient training on how to use the Google form that will compile vote totals, a complicated process in a caucus.
To paraphrase an ad campaign from my neck of the woods:
Now the big question is, are the Republicans going to ignore it long enough that it's not going to matter?
Primarily because they're going to appeal it up to the next court, in such a way that it won't get heard until after November, but even if it's "expidited" earlier (or if their appeal is denied), relying on fuckery with the bureaucracy that they sit on this as long as they can, and when court ordered to implement it, "this can't possibly be implemented to register all four million felons by October 5th (Florida's general election registration deadline), and if we can't register them all, it's unfair to register any".
This is absolutely a victory for voting rights in Florida. But the activists and lawyers can't take their foot off the gas until this is salted, burned, staked through the heart, and buried six feet down. Because if there's one thing we've learned (in general, but also in how this specific issue has played out), is that Republicans will engage in every manner of ratfuckery to affect the results of elections.
Now the big question is, are the Republicans going to ignore it long enough that it's not going to matter?
Primarily because they're going to appeal it up to the next court, in such a way that it won't get heard until after November, but even if it's "expidited" earlier (or if their appeal is denied), relying on fuckery with the bureaucracy that they sit on this as long as they can, and when court ordered to implement it, "this can't possibly be implemented to register all four million felons by October 5th (Florida's general election registration deadline), and if we can't register them all, it's unfair to register any".
This is absolutely a victory for voting rights in Florida. But the activists and lawyers can't take their foot off the gas until this is salted, burned, staked through the heart, and buried six feet down. Because if there's one thing we've learned (in general, but also in how this specific issue has played out), is that Republicans will engage in every manner of ratfuckery to affect the results of elections.
Apparently the appeals ruling is limited to specifically only the specifically people who brought the case, but the court is presuming that the injunction will be expanded to cover all who are subject to the GOP's fuckery, so it's almost certain they're going to appeal again, and one previous court did uphold it, so... god, I hope this gets done and thrown out long enough before the election.
It seems to me as if there's a fundamental problem with the courts and how long things take to resolve when they're time-sensitive.
Also, the court still reached the wrong conclusion here. The correct conclusion was "all felons had their voting rights restored the moment the vote passed because thats what the amendment says".
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants (with the exception of the Governor and the Supervisor of Orange County) from preventing the plaintiffs from voting based solely on their genuine inability to pay legal financial obligations.
This just affirms the hold placed by the lower court with respect to the 17 plaintiffs who cannot afford to pay. Which is good, but it doesn't go further to declare the requirement a poll tax, or automatically extend it to others who find themselves in the same position.
(I was initially confused as to why I was reading a letter to Jerry Nadler before realizing I had declined to "Download 'download.pdf' again"
Now the big question is, are the Republicans going to ignore it long enough that it's not going to matter?
Primarily because they're going to appeal it up to the next court, in such a way that it won't get heard until after November, but even if it's "expidited" earlier (or if their appeal is denied), relying on fuckery with the bureaucracy that they sit on this as long as they can, and when court ordered to implement it, "this can't possibly be implemented to register all four million felons by October 5th (Florida's general election registration deadline), and if we can't register them all, it's unfair to register any".
This is absolutely a victory for voting rights in Florida. But the activists and lawyers can't take their foot off the gas until this is salted, burned, staked through the heart, and buried six feet down. Because if there's one thing we've learned (in general, but also in how this specific issue has played out), is that Republicans will engage in every manner of ratfuckery to affect the results of elections.
Apparently the appeals ruling is limited to specifically only the specifically people who brought the case, but the court is presuming that the injunction will be expanded to cover all who are subject to the GOP's fuckery, so it's almost certain they're going to appeal again, and one previous court did uphold it, so... god, I hope this gets done and thrown out long enough before the election.
If I were the AG trying to stop them from voting, I wouldn't bother taking the preliminary injunction to SCOTUS. The trial is in April, at worst they let 17 people vote in the Democratic primary. I would appeal the final decision, then invoke the "can't change illegal voting laws this close to an election!" rule that conservative judges love so much.
It seems to me as if there's a fundamental problem with the courts and how long things take to resolve when they're time-sensitive.
Also, the court still reached the wrong conclusion here. The correct conclusion was "all felons had their voting rights restored the moment the vote passed because thats what the amendment says".
This is a fundamental problem with everything in a democratic system honestly. By the time you've determined so and so cheated or such and such was illegal, it's already months or years too late.
It seems to me as if there's a fundamental problem with the courts and how long things take to resolve when they're time-sensitive.
Also, the court still reached the wrong conclusion here. The correct conclusion was "all felons had their voting rights restored the moment the vote passed because thats what the amendment says".
This is a fundamental problem with everything in a democratic system honestly. By the time you've determined so and so cheated or such and such was illegal, it's already months or years too late.
I've in other threads, the penalty for this kind of thing needs to be the election being unskewed. How many votes could the other guys have got if this wasn't a thing? Assume they get them, and pack your things.
It seems to me as if there's a fundamental problem with the courts and how long things take to resolve when they're time-sensitive.
Also, the court still reached the wrong conclusion here. The correct conclusion was "all felons had their voting rights restored the moment the vote passed because thats what the amendment says".
This is a fundamental problem with everything in a democratic system honestly. By the time you've determined so and so cheated or such and such was illegal, it's already months or years too late.
At least this whole process is a little better than the Jim Crow era where the disenfranchised voter would sue the county clerk that prevented them from voting, not the government that the clerk worked for. If the case looked like the voter would win, and was somehow protected from a lynching, the clerk would resign and get the case dismissed before any ruling could be rendered on the legality of what the Clerk did.
Three weeks before official 2020 census forms are due to start showing up in mailboxes, the RNC has sent out mailers titled "2020 Congressional District Census" contained in envelopes marked "official document, do not destroy"
Statement from Senator Reid: “I believe it’s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere.”
Adam Jentleson is the former Deputy Chief of Staff for former Senator Harry Reid.
There's only like 2 or 3 states left that caucus (plus a bunch of territories). Shouldn't really be a big deal to pressure those states to move over to primaries, especially after all the fuckups this cycle.
Statement from Senator Reid: “I believe it’s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere.”
Adam Jentleson is the former Deputy Chief of Staff for former Senator Harry Reid.
While I agree on the "end of caucuses" thing, I disagree a whole shitload with "we [Nevada] should be first in the nation".
Because I don't think any singular state should have that role, and I don't think any set of states should have it as a permanent fixture. I understand the desire to not want to have large states with expensive media markets (ie, NY/Cali) dominate the initial contests. But you can pick 4 or 5 of 24-25 middle population states, with a diverse demographic profile, and rotate them all through every 5-6 cycles.
No single state should have a monopoly on this. And calling for one, especially if there's a clear self interest (Reid is a Nevadan), just completely undercuts the message IMO.
Statement from Senator Reid: “I believe it’s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere.”
Adam Jentleson is the former Deputy Chief of Staff for former Senator Harry Reid.
While I agree on the "end of caucuses" thing, I disagree a whole shitload with "we [Nevada] should be first in the nation".
Because I don't think any singular state should have that role, and I don't think any set of states should have it as a permanent fixture. I understand the desire to not want to have large states with expensive media markets (ie, NY/Cali) dominate the initial contests. But you can pick 4 or 5 of 24-25 middle population states, with a diverse demographic profile, and rotate them all through every 5-6 cycles.
No single state should have a monopoly on this. And calling for one, especially if there's a clear self interest (Reid is a Nevadan), just completely undercuts the message IMO.
It's just boilerplate pandering, along with the actual point. Same with calling everywhere the Great State of ___. Nobody really thinks Delaware is Great, but it's just being polite.
Nevada is actually somewhat representative at least. If we're going to have a single state to represent the Democratic Party, Nevada, Virginia, or Georgia probably make the most sense.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I wouldn't mind terribly if Iowa lost the whole first thing because of being such fuck ups this year. Then we just start scrutinizing the fuck out of NH.
Nevada is actually somewhat representative at least. If we're going to have a single state to represent the Democratic Party, Nevada, Virginia, or Georgia probably make the most sense.
Illinois most closely matches national demographics, has a major urban area, several mid-size industrial cities that house Fortune 100 companies in their own right, and rural farmland. Plus, we'll keep it entertaining with the FBI raids.
Posts
Our demographics aren't the best, but you do have a populace hardened against political showboating and unimpressed by most candidates.
As far as I'm aware evidence seems to indicate this is not true. I believe from what I read on this that none of the supposed "states with the hardened savvy populaces" are distinguishable in polling on a demographic level from elsewhere in the primary now. Your average white middle class voter in Iowa and your average white middle class voter in California are not meaningfully different in their voting intentions. The race has been essentially fully nationalized.
The more we see, the more that caucuses are indefensible.
That does not describe most people. Hell, I'm one of the weirdos who enjoy arguing politics and policy and it's still something I'd loathe doing.
Hey, just lived here all my life and there's a reason people like GW Bush never won the primary - people saw through him. It may not be as true today, but growing up telling a presidential candidate to piss off at a diner because you were eating pancakes was pretty common. Bill Clinton also likely would not have been elected without the localized retail of NH, nor would Kasich have posed as much of a challenge. I will say candidates who know they don't offer much as a person increasingly stay away, so we'll see where things go.
I don't think this is a remotely acceptable reason to choose NH first for a primary in perpetuity, not the least because it's 100% unable to be proven or dis-proven.
There are many other more representative options, or even better just a random lottery.
Would also be willing to support some kind of Royal Rumble/Triple Cage Match pageantry
I never said we were perfect. Also our Republican party has become a trash fire as of late.
I think Nevada is a reasonable choice given the demographic breakout? Also, you know Vegas would have fun with it.
Or do something else. There's innumerable methods that would be less bad than what we're doing now.
I'm just not optimistic about finding a solution unless it's part of a complete constitutional overhaul. The states that get power from the status quo aren't going to give that up willingly, especially when one of our political parties also benefits.
First we ought to grapple with why Iowa is first anyway
It wasn’t about their EVs back then
Would returning to the "VP is the second most electoral college votes" (fuck the electoral college) do anything to interrupt our current first past the post system?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
It would likely result in more assassinations.
No.
You think Trump in unimpeachable now? Just think if that vote would have directly handed power to the other party. VPs basically have the power the President lets them have and very little actual statutory power.
Without something like ranked choice we're pretty doomed to two party for major races.
Edit: Moniker: Ewww. Accurate but ewww.
Actually, Clinton would have control over the Senate agenda in that situation, as President of the Senate.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
And immediately overruled in every instance by the Senate majority, which would then go on like it has been.
To paraphrase an ad campaign from my neck of the woods:
(Law reporter with link to ruling)
Now the big question is, are the Republicans going to ignore it long enough that it's not going to matter?
Primarily because they're going to appeal it up to the next court, in such a way that it won't get heard until after November, but even if it's "expidited" earlier (or if their appeal is denied), relying on fuckery with the bureaucracy that they sit on this as long as they can, and when court ordered to implement it, "this can't possibly be implemented to register all four million felons by October 5th (Florida's general election registration deadline), and if we can't register them all, it's unfair to register any".
This is absolutely a victory for voting rights in Florida. But the activists and lawyers can't take their foot off the gas until this is salted, burned, staked through the heart, and buried six feet down. Because if there's one thing we've learned (in general, but also in how this specific issue has played out), is that Republicans will engage in every manner of ratfuckery to affect the results of elections.
Apparently the appeals ruling is limited to specifically only the specifically people who brought the case, but the court is presuming that the injunction will be expanded to cover all who are subject to the GOP's fuckery, so it's almost certain they're going to appeal again, and one previous court did uphold it, so... god, I hope this gets done and thrown out long enough before the election.
Also, the court still reached the wrong conclusion here. The correct conclusion was "all felons had their voting rights restored the moment the vote passed because thats what the amendment says".
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This just affirms the hold placed by the lower court with respect to the 17 plaintiffs who cannot afford to pay. Which is good, but it doesn't go further to declare the requirement a poll tax, or automatically extend it to others who find themselves in the same position.
(I was initially confused as to why I was reading a letter to Jerry Nadler before realizing I had declined to "Download 'download.pdf' again"
Use your words, Politico.)
If I were the AG trying to stop them from voting, I wouldn't bother taking the preliminary injunction to SCOTUS. The trial is in April, at worst they let 17 people vote in the Democratic primary. I would appeal the final decision, then invoke the "can't change illegal voting laws this close to an election!" rule that conservative judges love so much.
This is a fundamental problem with everything in a democratic system honestly. By the time you've determined so and so cheated or such and such was illegal, it's already months or years too late.
I've in other threads, the penalty for this kind of thing needs to be the election being unskewed. How many votes could the other guys have got if this wasn't a thing? Assume they get them, and pack your things.
At least this whole process is a little better than the Jim Crow era where the disenfranchised voter would sue the county clerk that prevented them from voting, not the government that the clerk worked for. If the case looked like the voter would win, and was somehow protected from a lynching, the clerk would resign and get the case dismissed before any ruling could be rendered on the legality of what the Clerk did.
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/02/21/the-republican-party-is-sending-misleading-census-forms-nationwide-including-in-florida-report/
But what does the FEC have to say about this? Nothing, because the GOP silenced them months ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bipartisan-group-of-campaign-finance-lawyers-urge-leaders-to-immediately-restore-quorum-at-federal-election-commission/2020/01/06/8a0002fe-30a3-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html
This is fine. Everything is just fine.
Edit: I originally referred to it a "fundraising mailer," but rereading the article it is not clear if the 'support' it solicits is monetary.
There's only like 2 or 3 states left that caucus (plus a bunch of territories). Shouldn't really be a big deal to pressure those states to move over to primaries, especially after all the fuckups this cycle.
While I agree on the "end of caucuses" thing, I disagree a whole shitload with "we [Nevada] should be first in the nation".
Because I don't think any singular state should have that role, and I don't think any set of states should have it as a permanent fixture. I understand the desire to not want to have large states with expensive media markets (ie, NY/Cali) dominate the initial contests. But you can pick 4 or 5 of 24-25 middle population states, with a diverse demographic profile, and rotate them all through every 5-6 cycles.
No single state should have a monopoly on this. And calling for one, especially if there's a clear self interest (Reid is a Nevadan), just completely undercuts the message IMO.
It's just boilerplate pandering, along with the actual point. Same with calling everywhere the Great State of ___. Nobody really thinks Delaware is Great, but it's just being polite.
But, yes. Please abolish caucuses. Also, superdelegates.
Illinois most closely matches national demographics, has a major urban area, several mid-size industrial cities that house Fortune 100 companies in their own right, and rural farmland. Plus, we'll keep it entertaining with the FBI raids.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube