US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3878

On May 25 2016 08:53 Introvert wrote:
Something needs to be done about the blue states that no GOP candidate will win being worth so much. Either lower their delegate hauls or split up their primary dates. They are meant to push liberal Republicans over the edge. the SEC states are all on that day because they have relatively low delegate numbers individually, so that's fine. But the fact that NY is 95 delegates is absurd. And CA's 172 is ridiculous too, although it rarely matters.

idk, there are so many ideas. Ultimately, the states can decide how to allocate delegates, but it makes sense that the party can change their numbers or influence dates.

On May 25 2016 08:58 zlefin wrote:
I find the entire notion that entities so thoroughly entwined with the operation of government as the Democrat and Republican parties get to qualify as "private organizations" and decide on their own (in various questionable and undemocratic ways) about decisions of such national import to be absurd.
The primary processes have a massive effect on who gets to be president of the united states, as well as on who holds numerous other offices.

On May 25 2016 08:53 Introvert wrote:
Something needs to be done about the blue states that no GOP candidate will win being worth so much. Either lower their delegate hauls or split up their primary dates. They are meant to push liberal Republicans over the edge. the SEC states are all on that day because they have relatively low delegate numbers individually, so that's fine. But the fact that NY is 95 delegates is absurd. And CA's 172 is ridiculous too, although it rarely matters.

idk, there are so many ideas. Ultimately, the states can decide how to allocate delegates, but it makes sense that the party can change their numbers or influence dates.

On May 25 2016 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:


Isn't this the opposite of what you want? Imagine of Santorum got a ton of momentum against Romney. Or if Cruz won, lol. I know you were a Cruz supporter, but his chances at the general weren't exactly what a republican would want..

On May 25 2016 08:57 Gorsameth wrote:

Why should it be up to the states? Imo the national party should decide on how their primary is run, not at the state level.

Away with different states and different rules. clarity with 1 set of guidelines for every state.

On May 25 2016 09:08 Gorsameth wrote:

Probably a good solution if your interested in maintaining the 2 party system.
However at the moment one of the 2 has become the party of "(less)no government" so your going to be hard pressed to get them to agree to more government influence in elections.

Besides, leaving it up to the government wont make it better. If that resulted in democratic functions gerrymandering would not exist. So who else is going to do it? A separate independent organization? If you can't get them to use that for drawing voting districts your not going to get them to do it for organizing the primary/

And while we're at it, they should all be closed.

On May 25 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


I fully understand this desire, but I'm not sure it makes sense when after this election it's probable that most people won't belong to either party. Sounds like an excellent way to kill the party and make room for a new one though.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Speaker Paul Ryan is taking steps to bring greater order to the House floor after a Democrat-authored gay rights amendment caused chaos last week.

Ryan told House Republicans Tuesday that in the future, such amendments will have to be printed ahead of time. Current rules can allow amendments to be written and voted on in real time when spending bills are up for debate.

It's a procedural change that could allow the GOP majority to better manage politically problematic votes.

"You don't like to have surprises," said Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., as he exited the closed-door GOP meeting where Ryan announced the planned change. "If you want to play tricks and games that's fine. If you're interested in doing legislation you ought to have thought it through."

Last week Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney offered a gay rights amendment that was about to pass, before seven Republicans changed their votes under pressure from House GOP leaders, and the amendment failed.

Outraged Democrats chanted "Shame! Shame!" as Republicans switched their votes. GOP lawmakers and aides said Maloney's amendment caught them by surprise and they had to take quick action against it in order to salvage the underlying legislation, a spending bill to pay for popular veterans and military construction projects.

But the result was a messy scene the GOP wants to avoid repeating. A similar scenario flaired last year on an amendment related to the Confederate flag, and Democrats had already made clear that they would be bringing Maloney's amendment back up on other spending bills.

On May 25 2016 11:15 Falling wrote:

Well, I think they should form their own party then. I don't think it is such a strange expectation that Republicans ought to be the ones that choose who they are putting forward for the election, nor that Democrats ought to be the ones that choose who they are putting forward for the election. Then on the actual election day, every one can have their say on whether their picks are any good. But it seems odd (to me) that people not a part of the party wanting to pick a representative for the party that they do not belong. Maybe being able to join the party needs to be streamlined... on the other hand, I think the party needs to be able to protect from other party shenanigans: Party X in State Awesome has no hope of winning, so close to primaries Party X members register for Party Y just to stack votes on some random candidate just to throw a monkey wrench in Party Y's process.

Today American Crossroads announced that it is endorsing Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida’s 23rd Congressional District Democratic primary. Crossroads’ President and CEO Steven Law had this to say about the organization’s rare decision to endorse in a contested primary:

“Congresswoman and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has played a critical role over the past several years in the massive Republican gains we have achieved at the state level, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and in the U.S. Senate.

“Wasserman Schultz’s leadership has also been a catalyst for the emerging civil war in the Democratic Party this year, ensuring that their nominating process will drag on far longer than that of Republicans.

“Voters of the 23rd District of Florida should know – American Crossroads stands with Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in her primary against ultra-liberal outsider Tim Canova, and they should too.”

On May 25 2016 12:11 Mohdoo wrote:
who is americancrossroads and why should i care about them?

On May 25 2016 12:11 Mohdoo wrote:
who is americancrossroads and why should i care about them?

On May 25 2016 12:12 xDaunt wrote:

Karl Rove.

On May 25 2016 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


Seriously?