|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 28 2016 14:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Less than half — 45 percent — of Republican voters say they are satisfied with Donald Trump as their party's presidential nominee, according to the latest results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday.
Another 52 percent said they would have preferred someone else as the GOP standard bearer, while the levels of satisfaction are reversed among Democratic voters, 52 percent of which said they are satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee in November.
The results break down ideological and educational lines.
Among conservative Republicans, 53 percent said they would have preferred a candidate other than Trump, while 45 percent of that group said they are fine with the Manhattan real-estate mogul as the nominee. Moderate Republicans split at 49 percent each, while 58 percent of Republicans who have a high-school education or less said they are satisfied. Sixty percent with a college degree said they would like someone else.
On the issues, a majority of voters said Trump would be better than Clinton at "changing business as usual in Washington" (53 percent to 23 percent). Trump also led on economic issues (47 percent to 37 percent), "standing up for America" (45 percent to 37 percent), terrorism and homeland security (44 percent to 39 percent), guns (43 percent to 35 percent), "being effective at getting things done" (42 percent to 39 percent) and "being honest and straighforward" (41 percent to 25 percent). Source
I find it fascinating that Trump has been able to capture ~50% of almost every type of Republican without heavily pulling from one over the other (except maybe the "poorly educated" and men).
Only 25% finding Hillary "Honest and Straightforward" vs 41% for Trump is mind numbing. She has to have the worst numbers ever for honesty in presidential campaign history at this point. Even more unbelievable, it's when being compared to a known compulsive liar (not a clinical determination). If Trump supporters need an example we can just go with his rally attendance claims. He habitually lies about them, starting all the way back to his first AZ rally.
|
On June 28 2016 14:38 cLutZ wrote:
...
Because both arguments are about preserving innocent life (from the sincere, logical POV of the supporters of those measures) "You can access abortion but not guns under conditions X, Y and Z, therefore abortion rights are in a better place than gun rights" is inherently a good one. You can quibble about one thing or another (like I pointed out, maybe 5 days is more pressing in the abortion situation than in a gun situation), but the fundamental logic is the same. We don't trust "X" sort of person with the decision of taking life, we are comfortable about "Y" sort of government agent having control over the populace's ability to take a life.
...
Stipulating that "the fundamental logic is the same", that still doesn't make "You can access abortion but not guns under conditions X, Y and Z, therefore abortion rights are in a better place than gun rights" valid reasoning.
The specifics of when it it is appropriate to have access to guns or abortion are different, and those specifics are so fundamentally relevant to legislating on one or the other that a direct comparison of this kind is both pointless and meaningless.
That being said, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a comment on the comparative positioning of gun and abortion rights in the US. Your conclusion could be correct; that is a different discussion.
(I also disagree with the idea that greater restrictions on accessing a "right" is necessarily bad or worse than the alternative. To take an example, I may have a right to have access to a potentially dangerous and addictive medicine, but I am restricted from accessing it unless (in the opinion of a qualified person) I have a need for it. Similarly, restrictions on guns or abortion are not necessarily bad. I am not sure whether that is actually your point of view, but your argument could be interpreted in that way.)
|
On June 28 2016 15:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 14:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Less than half — 45 percent — of Republican voters say they are satisfied with Donald Trump as their party's presidential nominee, according to the latest results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday.
Another 52 percent said they would have preferred someone else as the GOP standard bearer, while the levels of satisfaction are reversed among Democratic voters, 52 percent of which said they are satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee in November.
The results break down ideological and educational lines.
Among conservative Republicans, 53 percent said they would have preferred a candidate other than Trump, while 45 percent of that group said they are fine with the Manhattan real-estate mogul as the nominee. Moderate Republicans split at 49 percent each, while 58 percent of Republicans who have a high-school education or less said they are satisfied. Sixty percent with a college degree said they would like someone else.
On the issues, a majority of voters said Trump would be better than Clinton at "changing business as usual in Washington" (53 percent to 23 percent). Trump also led on economic issues (47 percent to 37 percent), "standing up for America" (45 percent to 37 percent), terrorism and homeland security (44 percent to 39 percent), guns (43 percent to 35 percent), "being effective at getting things done" (42 percent to 39 percent) and "being honest and straighforward" (41 percent to 25 percent). Source I find it fascinating that Trump has been able to capture ~50% of almost every type of Republican without heavily pulling from one over the other (except maybe the "poorly educated" and men). Only 25% finding Hillary "Honest and Straightforward" vs 41% for Trump is mind numbing. She has to have the worst numbers ever for honesty in presidential campaign history at this point. Even more unbelievable, it's when being compared to a known compulsive liar (not a clinical determination). If Trump supporters need an example we can just go with his rally attendance claims. He habitually lies about them, starting all the way back to his first AZ rally.
One does have to question how much of that perception of Clinton is opposition spin.
|
On June 28 2016 15:38 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 15:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2016 14:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Less than half — 45 percent — of Republican voters say they are satisfied with Donald Trump as their party's presidential nominee, according to the latest results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday.
Another 52 percent said they would have preferred someone else as the GOP standard bearer, while the levels of satisfaction are reversed among Democratic voters, 52 percent of which said they are satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee in November.
The results break down ideological and educational lines.
Among conservative Republicans, 53 percent said they would have preferred a candidate other than Trump, while 45 percent of that group said they are fine with the Manhattan real-estate mogul as the nominee. Moderate Republicans split at 49 percent each, while 58 percent of Republicans who have a high-school education or less said they are satisfied. Sixty percent with a college degree said they would like someone else.
On the issues, a majority of voters said Trump would be better than Clinton at "changing business as usual in Washington" (53 percent to 23 percent). Trump also led on economic issues (47 percent to 37 percent), "standing up for America" (45 percent to 37 percent), terrorism and homeland security (44 percent to 39 percent), guns (43 percent to 35 percent), "being effective at getting things done" (42 percent to 39 percent) and "being honest and straighforward" (41 percent to 25 percent). Source I find it fascinating that Trump has been able to capture ~50% of almost every type of Republican without heavily pulling from one over the other (except maybe the "poorly educated" and men). Only 25% finding Hillary "Honest and Straightforward" vs 41% for Trump is mind numbing. She has to have the worst numbers ever for honesty in presidential campaign history at this point. Even more unbelievable, it's when being compared to a known compulsive liar (not a clinical determination). If Trump supporters need an example we can just go with his rally attendance claims. He habitually lies about them, starting all the way back to his first AZ rally. One does have to question how much of that perception of Clinton is opposition spin.
I can't say statistically but very few Sanders supporters reference stuff from Republicans. It's mostly TPP, her attacks on Bernie, Keystone, Immigration, left leaning stuff. The crossover comes mostly around the Clinton foundation, which as I've said, would be ripped to shreds if it had a Republicans name on it by the same Dem's that call the stories about it's questionable practices part of a right wing conspiracy.
|
On June 28 2016 14:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Less than half — 45 percent — of Republican voters say they are satisfied with Donald Trump as their party's presidential nominee, according to the latest results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday.
Another 52 percent said they would have preferred someone else as the GOP standard bearer, while the levels of satisfaction are reversed among Democratic voters, 52 percent of which said they are satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee in November.
The results break down ideological and educational lines.
Among conservative Republicans, 53 percent said they would have preferred a candidate other than Trump, while 45 percent of that group said they are fine with the Manhattan real-estate mogul as the nominee. Moderate Republicans split at 49 percent each, while 58 percent of Republicans who have a high-school education or less said they are satisfied. Sixty percent with a college degree said they would like someone else.
On the issues, a majority of voters said Trump would be better than Clinton at "changing business as usual in Washington" (53 percent to 23 percent). Trump also led on economic issues (47 percent to 37 percent), "standing up for America" (45 percent to 37 percent), terrorism and homeland security (44 percent to 39 percent), guns (43 percent to 35 percent), "being effective at getting things done" (42 percent to 39 percent) and "being honest and straighforward" (41 percent to 25 percent). Source Woah woah woah you're saying conservatives supported other candidates besides Trump? He attracts more people having only a high-school education than those with college degrees? Straight to the presses boys, nobody knows about the tough primary season and only the plurality he could muster through to when his final challenger suspended operations. Coming up next, is the Pope Catholic and is the sky blue? As a reluctant Trump supporter, I hope the convention gives me reason to hope he'll be more than my third time in a row voting for the lesser of two evils.
|
On June 28 2016 15:22 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 14:38 cLutZ wrote:
...
Because both arguments are about preserving innocent life (from the sincere, logical POV of the supporters of those measures) "You can access abortion but not guns under conditions X, Y and Z, therefore abortion rights are in a better place than gun rights" is inherently a good one. You can quibble about one thing or another (like I pointed out, maybe 5 days is more pressing in the abortion situation than in a gun situation), but the fundamental logic is the same. We don't trust "X" sort of person with the decision of taking life, we are comfortable about "Y" sort of government agent having control over the populace's ability to take a life.
... Stipulating that "the fundamental logic is the same", that still doesn't make "You can access abortion but not guns under conditions X, Y and Z, therefore abortion rights are in a better place than gun rights" valid reasoning. The specifics of when it it is appropriate to have access to guns or abortion are different, and those specifics are so fundamentally relevant to legislating on one or the other that a direct comparison of this kind is both pointless and meaningless. That being said, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a comment on the comparative positioning of gun and abortion rights in the US. Your conclusion could be correct; that is a different discussion. (I also disagree with the idea that greater restrictions on accessing a "right" is necessarily bad or worse than the alternative. To take an example, I may have a right to have access to a potentially dangerous and addictive medicine, but I am restricted from accessing it unless (in the opinion of a qualified person) I have a need for it. Similarly, restrictions on guns or abortion are not necessarily bad. I am not sure whether that is actually your point of view, but your argument could be interpreted in that way.)
Lets take your medicine example, its dangerous, addictive, but also provides benefits. And lets say we have said that there is a right to this medicine, what medicine's current regulatory scheme would leave you to think that you have a fundamental right to buy that drug if you want to. Lets say there was a right to use Cocaine in the county, lets say in the 20s right after we gave the women the right to vote those same people loved them some Coke and made it the 20th Amendment. What regulatory scheme would we have? What would you deem a balance between the right to coke, and the dangers it has. Here are some Drugs:
MDMA? There are ways to get it, but it is essentially limited to a handful of doctors for dozens of PTSD patients in America.
Marijuana? In some states I can't get it legally at all, and in others the seller risks being arrested or having his assets seized by the federal government at any time.
Vicodin? Well, I need a prescription from a guy with a license, and I can only get it from approved sellers, and I have to have specific reasons for needing (rather than wanting) it.
Cough medicine? I have to show ID to get it, and I can only buy a little bit each day, and if I buy a lot I can get banned from buying it, and the police will investigate me merely for buying lots of it.
Ibuprofen? No one will stop me from buying all the AdviI want. It will cure my aches and pain, and give me stomach bleeding, kidney failure, and liver failure if I take all that I buy.
I'd say its probably the cough medicine treatment that Cocaine-as-a-right would get, but I could be wrong. It could be a step lower like Tobacco/Alcohol, but not quite Advil low, or it could be a kind of Vicodin-OTC medicine hybrid.
|
I'm not really interested in having that conversation, apologies.
(EDIT: I don't have background or interest in all of the details behind all of those drugs, or their regulation in the US; also, the argument I've been trying to make is about *how* to think rigorously about the regulation of guns and abortion, not *what* I think about them.)
|
Congress is poised for an epic failure in its efforts to combat Zika before lawmakers leave Washington for a seven-week vacation — and it could come back to bite Republicans at the ballot box if there’s an outbreak of the mosquito-borne virus in the United States this summer.
Senate Democrats are expected to reject a GOP funding measure on Tuesday, according to senators and aides, arguing that it would rob Obamacare of funding, impose new restrictions on Planned Parenthood and provide some $800 million less than the Obama administration is seeking. They’re also miffed that the measure, part of legislation to finance the Veterans Affairs Department, would allow the Confederate flag to fly at veterans cemeteries.
The stalemate carries real political risk: In 2014, Republicans blasted the Obama administration and Democrats’ response to Ebola, contributing to a public perception in the midterm election of feckless Democratic rule. Republicans gained control of the Senate that year — but now find their playbook is being used against them.
Republicans “taught us with Ebola,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “A public health crisis? Take it seriously. I don’t believe they’ve taken it seriously at all.”
The attack ads this time write themselves: Faced with months of dire warnings from health experts, the Republicans who control Congress failed to provide money to stop the spread of Zika to the United States. Bracing for such a message, Republicans began the week spinning the expected defeat of the House-passed bill as politics as usual for Democrats, alleging that the minority party would rather attack Republicans over the issue than pass a funding bill.
Indeed, in the short term, Democrats are more open to criticism: After clamoring for new Zika funding for months, they are set to vote against a bill at funding levels they’ve already agreed to. They’ve offered myriad objections: That the bill is paid for irresponsibly, inordinately relaxes clean water regulations and was constructed with no Democratic input.
Source
|
I really don't get why in the US, random stuff always gets attached to all of the bills. It seems like an extremely odd and unproductive procedure to have.
Why not have one bill about Zika, one about Planned Parenthood and one about Obamacare? Why is random shit about a flag related to the Zika virus in any way?
Can someone explain why this process is used?
|
On June 28 2016 21:46 Simberto wrote:
I really don't get why in the US, random stuff always gets attached to all of the bills. It seems like an extremely odd and unproductive procedure to have.
Why not have one bill about Zika, one about Planned Parenthood and one about Obamacare? Why is random shit about a flag related to the Zika virus in any way?
Can someone explain why this process is used?
It is the way bills are created and designed. Members of congress that are on the committee can add any amendment they want to the bill, which in theory should relate to bill itself. But sometimes it doesn’t. A good example is that one state might need more money for road repair due to a bad winter. So they use their vote on the bill as leverage to get a little extra federal assistance in repairs.
You should look up how bills are created in the US for a better understanding, it is different that most of the systems in the EU. It is a long process where the bill goes through both the senate and house before reaching the president’s desk. So sometimes bills get “attachments” to address minor funding issues or other things. Its not a perfect system, especially the way the house functions right now. It worked better in the past.
|
clutz -> I found your analogy reasonable; apples and oranges are still fruits with many comparable points. I'm not sure yet which has more restrictions on it; and it varies quite a bit by region I think.
Cough medicine restrictions are pretty reasonable considering the issues it has.
I'd agree that the result if it were a right would probably be around the cough medicine level.
|
On June 28 2016 15:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 14:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Less than half — 45 percent — of Republican voters say they are satisfied with Donald Drumpf as their party's presidential nominee, according to the latest results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday.
Another 52 percent said they would have preferred someone else as the GOP standard bearer, while the levels of satisfaction are reversed among Democratic voters, 52 percent of which said they are satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee in November.
The results break down ideological and educational lines.
Among conservative Republicans, 53 percent said they would have preferred a candidate other than Drumpf, while 45 percent of that group said they are fine with the Manhattan real-estate mogul as the nominee. Moderate Republicans split at 49 percent each, while 58 percent of Republicans who have a high-school education or less said they are satisfied. Sixty percent with a college degree said they would like someone else.
On the issues, a majority of voters said Drumpf would be better than Clinton at "changing business as usual in Washington" (53 percent to 23 percent). Drumpf also led on economic issues (47 percent to 37 percent), "standing up for America" (45 percent to 37 percent), terrorism and homeland security (44 percent to 39 percent), guns (43 percent to 35 percent), "being effective at getting things done" (42 percent to 39 percent) and "being honest and straighforward" (41 percent to 25 percent). Source I find it fascinating that Drumpf has been able to capture ~50% of almost every type of Republican without heavily pulling from one over the other (except maybe the "poorly educated" and men). Only 25% finding Hillary "Honest and Straightforward" vs 41% for Drumpf is mind numbing. She has to have the worst numbers ever for honesty in presidential campaign history at this point. Even more unbelievable, it's when being compared to a known compulsive liar (not a clinical determination). If Drumpf supporters need an example we can just go with his rally attendance claims. He habitually lies about them, starting all the way back to his first AZ rally.
Thats pretty straightforward. Right supporters think she is a liar that takes just a basic level of propaganda. And with all the shit thats flung at her from a rather divisive campaign and the scrutiny she has been under its a lose lose for the honesty department.
She could bare her soul and tell you her deepest darkest secrets from her 8th grade fart in class to how she deliberately let a senator in Benghazi die and Claire Underwooded her way to the nomination and people would still think she is hiding something. Its to late try and get back on that train for her.
Drumpf can get attacked for lying all he wants, he just brushes it off as establishment propaganda. Its not an indictment of Hillary as much as it is an indictment of the country.
|
On June 28 2016 21:46 Simberto wrote:
I really don't get why in the US, random stuff always gets attached to all of the bills. It seems like an extremely odd and unproductive procedure to have.
Why not have one bill about Zika, one about Planned Parenthood and one about Obamacare? Why is random shit about a flag related to the Zika virus in any way?
Can someone explain why this process is used?
Here's how it works.
You need X votes to get a bill through, but you only have Y. With Z more votes, you can get it passed. So you talk to Z more people, they add Z pork expenditures to the bill (I want a bridge at ____, I want a whatever at where ever, etc...)
You now take the bill, knowing it has enough votes, and you present it. They put it up for a vote, you get the Y + Z votes you needed to get it through--boom, you have a bill.
Bernie was the "Amendment King" because he would sell his vote to the highest bidder every chance he got. A lot of the "radical/mavericks/anti-establishments" use this tactic because its the primary way a minority vote gets the power make changes happen.
|
On June 28 2016 22:29 zlefin wrote:
clutz -> I found your analogy reasonable; apples and oranges are still fruits with many comparable points. I'm not sure yet which has more restrictions on it; and it varies quite a bit by region I think.
Cough medicine restrictions are pretty reasonable considering the issues it has.
I'd agree that the result if it were a right would probably be around the cough medicine level.
It’s not like they perform abortions sight unseen, with zero information. The woman has a consolation and are tests done. Blood work and so on. The same with the restrictions on cough medicine. There is a reason ID is required, and that is because cough medicine can be used to get a really shitty high. The difference between the tests/requirements and what the Texas law imposed are widely different because no one could justify their existence. And that abortion clinics complied with a previously imposed sent of laws and they just passed new, more difficult restrictions.
And the public good argument is overwhelming in this case. Previous restrictions have shown that if abortions are not available due to lack of clinics or that they are illegal, women will seek alternative methods. And it is only a matter of time before one of those leads to death or other harm.
|
The landslide New Hampshire victory finally put the campaign in a different frame of mind. "It gave us confidence that we could fight," says Jane Sanders. She calls the New Hampshire blowout "humbling, moving and surprising."
But then came Nevada, where a harsh reality set in: the Sanders campaign had not scaled up with talented teams beyond the first two states. The campaign had fired the original state director, and replacement Joan Kato was no better. With three weeks to go before the caucuses, the campaign still did not yet have chairs for every precinct.
There were other signs Kato was overmatched. At one point shortly before the caucuses, she instructed staff to buy double-sided coins -- in case coin-flips were needed to decide any of the caucuses in the event of a tie, according to staffers. In the end, Sanders lost Nevada by about a 5 percent margin. Although the campaign felt Kato had run a faulty field operation, she was not let go, instead staying on with the campaign as the national delegate director.
At the state convention, CNN reported that Kato told Sanders supporters they should take over the state convention in May, which ended disastrously.
Source
Top kek, especially since tie breakers in NV were decided by drawing cards.
|
On June 28 2016 22:40 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 15:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2016 14:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Less than half — 45 percent — of Republican voters say they are satisfied with Donald Drumpf as their party's presidential nominee, according to the latest results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday.
Another 52 percent said they would have preferred someone else as the GOP standard bearer, while the levels of satisfaction are reversed among Democratic voters, 52 percent of which said they are satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee in November.
The results break down ideological and educational lines.
Among conservative Republicans, 53 percent said they would have preferred a candidate other than Drumpf, while 45 percent of that group said they are fine with the Manhattan real-estate mogul as the nominee. Moderate Republicans split at 49 percent each, while 58 percent of Republicans who have a high-school education or less said they are satisfied. Sixty percent with a college degree said they would like someone else.
On the issues, a majority of voters said Drumpf would be better than Clinton at "changing business as usual in Washington" (53 percent to 23 percent). Drumpf also led on economic issues (47 percent to 37 percent), "standing up for America" (45 percent to 37 percent), terrorism and homeland security (44 percent to 39 percent), guns (43 percent to 35 percent), "being effective at getting things done" (42 percent to 39 percent) and "being honest and straighforward" (41 percent to 25 percent). Source I find it fascinating that Drumpf has been able to capture ~50% of almost every type of Republican without heavily pulling from one over the other (except maybe the "poorly educated" and men). Only 25% finding Hillary "Honest and Straightforward" vs 41% for Drumpf is mind numbing. She has to have the worst numbers ever for honesty in presidential campaign history at this point. Even more unbelievable, it's when being compared to a known compulsive liar (not a clinical determination). If Drumpf supporters need an example we can just go with his rally attendance claims. He habitually lies about them, starting all the way back to his first AZ rally. Thats pretty straightforward. Right supporters think she is a liar that takes just a basic level of propaganda. And with all the shit thats flung at her from a rather divisive campaign and the scrutiny she has been under its a lose lose for the honesty department. She could bare her soul and tell you her deepest darkest secrets from her 8th grade fart in class to how she deliberately let a senator in Benghazi die and Claire Underwooded her way to the nomination and people would still think she is hiding something. Its to late try and get back on that train for her. Drumpf can get attacked for lying all he wants, he just brushes it off as establishment propaganda. Its not an indictment of Hillary as much as it is an indictment of the country.
She admitted herself in one of her recent speeches that she has work to do with regarding her trustworthiness and her honesty. That she has made mistakes and doesn't know anyone else who hasn't either. That is in stark contrast to her strategy of evasion. It won't help her though, a presidential candidate admitting to lacking one of the most fundamental traits of a person with good character. Yeah she will never be able to bring those numbers up, for good reason too.
|
On June 28 2016 23:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +The landslide New Hampshire victory finally put the campaign in a different frame of mind. "It gave us confidence that we could fight," says Jane Sanders. She calls the New Hampshire blowout "humbling, moving and surprising."
But then came Nevada, where a harsh reality set in: the Sanders campaign had not scaled up with talented teams beyond the first two states. The campaign had fired the original state director, and replacement Joan Kato was no better. With three weeks to go before the caucuses, the campaign still did not yet have chairs for every precinct.
There were other signs Kato was overmatched. At one point shortly before the caucuses, she instructed staff to buy double-sided coins -- in case coin-flips were needed to decide any of the caucuses in the event of a tie, according to staffers. In the end, Sanders lost Nevada by about a 5 percent margin. Although the campaign felt Kato had run a faulty field operation, she was not let go, instead staying on with the campaign as the national delegate director.
At the state convention, CNN reported that Kato told Sanders supporters they should take over the state convention in May, which ended disastrously. SourceTop kek, especially since tie breakers in NV were decided by drawing cards.
It blows my mind that we still allow caucuses to continue. Do they have any modern justification?
|
On June 28 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 23:12 ticklishmusic wrote:The landslide New Hampshire victory finally put the campaign in a different frame of mind. "It gave us confidence that we could fight," says Jane Sanders. She calls the New Hampshire blowout "humbling, moving and surprising."
But then came Nevada, where a harsh reality set in: the Sanders campaign had not scaled up with talented teams beyond the first two states. The campaign had fired the original state director, and replacement Joan Kato was no better. With three weeks to go before the caucuses, the campaign still did not yet have chairs for every precinct.
There were other signs Kato was overmatched. At one point shortly before the caucuses, she instructed staff to buy double-sided coins -- in case coin-flips were needed to decide any of the caucuses in the event of a tie, according to staffers. In the end, Sanders lost Nevada by about a 5 percent margin. Although the campaign felt Kato had run a faulty field operation, she was not let go, instead staying on with the campaign as the national delegate director.
At the state convention, CNN reported that Kato told Sanders supporters they should take over the state convention in May, which ended disastrously. SourceTop kek, especially since tie breakers in NV were decided by drawing cards. It blows my mind that we still allow caucuses to continue. Do they have any modern justification?
The primaries are not regulated and each state does their own thing. They should be updated, but they have not had the spotlight on them like they do now. 2008 was the first election that turned them into the endless political side show that we know now. Before that, they were mostly ignored by the national press beyond the results themselves.
So no, not really. But it was never really that big of a deal. And the primaries are not the general election, they are run by the parties. They have not always existed.
|
On June 28 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:It blows my mind that we still allow caucuses to continue. Do they have any modern justification?
Sure, the modern justification is the historical one. In theory, they allow party elites to control the nomination. Whether that's desirable depends on what you believe the role of parties in modern representative democracy ought to be.
|
On June 28 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 23:12 ticklishmusic wrote:The landslide New Hampshire victory finally put the campaign in a different frame of mind. "It gave us confidence that we could fight," says Jane Sanders. She calls the New Hampshire blowout "humbling, moving and surprising."
But then came Nevada, where a harsh reality set in: the Sanders campaign had not scaled up with talented teams beyond the first two states. The campaign had fired the original state director, and replacement Joan Kato was no better. With three weeks to go before the caucuses, the campaign still did not yet have chairs for every precinct.
There were other signs Kato was overmatched. At one point shortly before the caucuses, she instructed staff to buy double-sided coins -- in case coin-flips were needed to decide any of the caucuses in the event of a tie, according to staffers. In the end, Sanders lost Nevada by about a 5 percent margin. Although the campaign felt Kato had run a faulty field operation, she was not let go, instead staying on with the campaign as the national delegate director.
At the state convention, CNN reported that Kato told Sanders supporters they should take over the state convention in May, which ended disastrously. SourceTop kek, especially since tie breakers in NV were decided by drawing cards. It blows my mind that we still allow caucuses to continue. Do they have any modern justification?
In certain political theories strength, or depth of support is valued more highly than breadth of support. These small, but passionate groups often drive changes in society. Sometimes this is for the better (anti-slavery movement) sometimes it is for the worse (prohibition). Think of it as raising the cost of voting, so that only those who care above a certain threshold will vote, but it also puts a cap on the value a person can exert, unlike a system where someone could, say, pay $100 per vote and vote as many times as they wanted to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
