|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 08 2020 05:54 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 05:42 CorsairHero wrote: being loyal to trump backfires again
So for his (potential) second term he will have lost pretty much all of his most capable high level employees and hired a third as many people as replacements? Will probably make this first term look pretty competent in comparison since half the people that should be leading the actual job will be empty spots. Making it hard to hire good people below them as those leave for any reason at all.
I'm too lazy to do the count, but the amount of permanent-acting secretaries should approach 50% soon if it hasn't already.
|
On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:17 Zooper31 wrote:On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? The Republicans control the Supreme Court in our state. They denied the Governors orders for the election to be postponed. For the entire city of Milwaukee there's 5 polling places, normally there's about 180, because so many workers refused to work. And the state website to request absentee ballots is so overloaded it's crashed and unresponsive. Meaning if you don't risk your health and stand in a crowded line surrounded by thousands of people for perhaps hours you don't get to vote. Luckily I live in a different county that's relatively low populated and I got in and out to vote in 2min and never had to stand within 6ft of anyone. I understand why Democrats failed to stop the vote altogether. The question was how they became powerless to stop their own primary. What I've gathered is either they aren't and continued it in a cynical political calculation putting voters' lives at risk or through some arcane and senseless mechanisms they conceded control over the Democratic primary to Republicans. Both demonstrate an unacceptable level of malice and/or incompetence for me. "Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for. Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved. And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic.
There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties.
In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway.
|
On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:17 Zooper31 wrote:On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? The Republicans control the Supreme Court in our state. They denied the Governors orders for the election to be postponed. For the entire city of Milwaukee there's 5 polling places, normally there's about 180, because so many workers refused to work. And the state website to request absentee ballots is so overloaded it's crashed and unresponsive. Meaning if you don't risk your health and stand in a crowded line surrounded by thousands of people for perhaps hours you don't get to vote. Luckily I live in a different county that's relatively low populated and I got in and out to vote in 2min and never had to stand within 6ft of anyone. I understand why Democrats failed to stop the vote altogether. The question was how they became powerless to stop their own primary. What I've gathered is either they aren't and continued it in a cynical political calculation putting voters' lives at risk or through some arcane and senseless mechanisms they conceded control over the Democratic primary to Republicans. Both demonstrate an unacceptable level of malice and/or incompetence for me. "Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for. Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved. And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. This aligns with how I understand the issue, the relative inability of a state political party to unilaterally change a primary date is not some accident or haphazard miscalculation, rather a natural reaction to the state party game playing that dominated bygone political eras involving entities like Tammany Hall.
|
And if they did cancel the primaries we would be hearing how stupid and inept they were for doing so when the rest of the process is going on anyway, and it is likely an effort of the DNC to not give Sanders a chance to make a comeback. It has become the case where you already know that the DNC is going to be attacked and spun no matter what the decision is that is being made.
This is a case where they went down all proper paths in an attempt to do the right thing but were blocked by the courts. There are plenty of real reasons to complain about the DNC and so on without having to pretend that every decision is poor.
|
On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:17 Zooper31 wrote:On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? The Republicans control the Supreme Court in our state. They denied the Governors orders for the election to be postponed. For the entire city of Milwaukee there's 5 polling places, normally there's about 180, because so many workers refused to work. And the state website to request absentee ballots is so overloaded it's crashed and unresponsive. Meaning if you don't risk your health and stand in a crowded line surrounded by thousands of people for perhaps hours you don't get to vote. Luckily I live in a different county that's relatively low populated and I got in and out to vote in 2min and never had to stand within 6ft of anyone. I understand why Democrats failed to stop the vote altogether. The question was how they became powerless to stop their own primary. What I've gathered is either they aren't and continued it in a cynical political calculation putting voters' lives at risk or through some arcane and senseless mechanisms they conceded control over the Democratic primary to Republicans. Both demonstrate an unacceptable level of malice and/or incompetence for me. "Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for. Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved. And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway.
The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't.
Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel
The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again.
|
On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:17 Zooper31 wrote:On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? The Republicans control the Supreme Court in our state. They denied the Governors orders for the election to be postponed. For the entire city of Milwaukee there's 5 polling places, normally there's about 180, because so many workers refused to work. And the state website to request absentee ballots is so overloaded it's crashed and unresponsive. Meaning if you don't risk your health and stand in a crowded line surrounded by thousands of people for perhaps hours you don't get to vote. Luckily I live in a different county that's relatively low populated and I got in and out to vote in 2min and never had to stand within 6ft of anyone. I understand why Democrats failed to stop the vote altogether. The question was how they became powerless to stop their own primary. What I've gathered is either they aren't and continued it in a cynical political calculation putting voters' lives at risk or through some arcane and senseless mechanisms they conceded control over the Democratic primary to Republicans. Both demonstrate an unacceptable level of malice and/or incompetence for me. "Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for. Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved. And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel Show nested quote +The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary?
I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
|
On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:17 Zooper31 wrote:On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? The Republicans control the Supreme Court in our state. They denied the Governors orders for the election to be postponed. For the entire city of Milwaukee there's 5 polling places, normally there's about 180, because so many workers refused to work. And the state website to request absentee ballots is so overloaded it's crashed and unresponsive. Meaning if you don't risk your health and stand in a crowded line surrounded by thousands of people for perhaps hours you don't get to vote. Luckily I live in a different county that's relatively low populated and I got in and out to vote in 2min and never had to stand within 6ft of anyone. I understand why Democrats failed to stop the vote altogether. The question was how they became powerless to stop their own primary. What I've gathered is either they aren't and continued it in a cynical political calculation putting voters' lives at risk or through some arcane and senseless mechanisms they conceded control over the Democratic primary to Republicans. Both demonstrate an unacceptable level of malice and/or incompetence for me. "Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for. Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved. And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch.
I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying.
In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election.
|
On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:17 Zooper31 wrote: [quote]
The Republicans control the Supreme Court in our state. They denied the Governors orders for the election to be postponed. For the entire city of Milwaukee there's 5 polling places, normally there's about 180, because so many workers refused to work. And the state website to request absentee ballots is so overloaded it's crashed and unresponsive. Meaning if you don't risk your health and stand in a crowded line surrounded by thousands of people for perhaps hours you don't get to vote.
Luckily I live in a different county that's relatively low populated and I got in and out to vote in 2min and never had to stand within 6ft of anyone. I understand why Democrats failed to stop the vote altogether. The question was how they became powerless to stop their own primary. What I've gathered is either they aren't and continued it in a cynical political calculation putting voters' lives at risk or through some arcane and senseless mechanisms they conceded control over the Democratic primary to Republicans. Both demonstrate an unacceptable level of malice and/or incompetence for me. "Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for. Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved. And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. Show nested quote +I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. Show nested quote +In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election.
I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system.
In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization.
I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no?
You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election?
|
On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I understand why Democrats failed to stop the vote altogether. The question was how they became powerless to stop their own primary. What I've gathered is either they aren't and continued it in a cynical political calculation putting voters' lives at risk or through some arcane and senseless mechanisms they conceded control over the Democratic primary to Republicans. Both demonstrate an unacceptable level of malice and/or incompetence for me. "Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for. Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved. And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election?
It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense).
As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them.
For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic?
As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food.
|
On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 03:49 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]"Because the American system is stupid" is what I assume your fishing for.
Holding an election is a lot of work and without support from the government your going to have a hard time sorting things like polling stations, and I assume they are held in public facilities in the US aswell so again, government gets involved.
And the whole other elections going on anyway regardless of whether the primary is held or not because Republicans are once again a movie villian twirling their evil moustache. I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election? It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense). As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them. For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic? As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food. So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that?
And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election.
|
On April 08 2020 10:42 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I just don't see the value of Democrats if they are so inept and helpless against Republicans they can't even control their own primaries. I also think the crutch of pointing at how Republicans are worse isn't helping. Frankly, albeit morally atrocious, it is less damning in some ways imo if they did have the ability to delay the primary (which I think they did) and chose not to for political reasons. I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election? It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense). As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them. For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic? As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food. So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that? And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election.
Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity.
With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November.
It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups.
|
I do think there are real issues with giving republican state legislatures the ability to affect their opponent's nomination. Their record when given power over electoral process is appalling, and even the dems are not much better.
Primaries in the US are just so strange. In law and in principle they are just internal processes of the various groups opting to put forward a nominee for president. There is no requirement that they be fair or democratic - democracy happens in November.
The issue is that the widespread disenfranchisement due to the US's archaic system means that the primary is the only chance for a huge chunk of the population to cast a vote that is worth counting. Because of this, people see them as a core part of their participation in the democratic process, which adds all kinds of expectations that have no formal grounding.
|
On April 08 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 04:25 ChristianS wrote: [quote] I don’t know the legal specifics here (sounds like you don’t either), but if they gave the state government control over their primary date (and therefore power over whether to cancel/postpone), why is that so bad? In normal times, wouldn’t that be preferable to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and/or DNC being able to unilaterally decide “We’re cancelling/postponing our primary” and no one can tell them no? Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example) Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will. More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives. This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election? It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense). As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them. For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic? As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food. So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that? And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election. Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity. With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November. It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups. I mean, I think the insurmountable barrier for you is justifying throwing out what appear to have been fairly administered elections, just because a bad thing happened that you think should make voters reconsider their choice. Iowa is one thing, but CA? TX? NH? Throwing out those results is probably illegal, and definitely a violation of fair play, but it’s also not clear how you’re even going to convince people it’s a good idea. Other than “the contest looked pretty much over by the time the virus hit, but I don’t like the result so I wanna redo it”?
Would a national crisis be grounds to throw out a general election result, too? If another pandemic hits in March 2021, should we toss November’s results and re-vote on who’s president?
|
On April 08 2020 12:56 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Democratic party has total control over their primary. The state party controls the process, DNC heavily influences the date (by way of penalizing Wisconsin if they did delay as one example)
Beyond that, giving their ability to hold their own primary to a state body that is (or could be) controlled by Republicans that regularly talk about disenfranchising voters being part of Republican electoral strategy is as I said imo, demonstrative of unacceptable incompetence and/or ill will.
More importantly it is demonstrative of their inability to act as an adequate foil to Republicans in the face of a crisis and it is going to cost people their lives.
This same thing happened in Chicago earlier with no Republicans to blame btw. I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic. There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties. In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election? It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense). As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them. For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic? As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food. So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that? And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election. Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity. With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November. It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups. I mean, I think the insurmountable barrier for you is justifying throwing out what appear to have been fairly administered elections, just because a bad thing happened that you think should make voters reconsider their choice. Iowa is one thing, but CA? TX? NH? Throwing out those results is probably illegal, and definitely a violation of fair play, but it’s also not clear how you’re even going to convince people it’s a good idea. Other than “the contest looked pretty much over by the time the virus hit, but I don’t like the result so I wanna redo it”? Would a national crisis be grounds to throw out a general election result, too? If another pandemic hits in March 2021, should we toss November’s results and re-vote on who’s president?
First I'd say "fairly administered" is a stretch at best when you have 7+ hour lines on Texas college campuses.
The DNC literally argued in court and won based on the premise they could throw out any votes they want up to and including all of them after a completely flawless primary. So no, it wouldn't be illegal.
I can think of plenty of sensible arguments for why Iowa's results should be thrown out, CA results aren't even finalized so simply not certifying them would be an option and NH probably wouldn't mind in the interest of the greater good (what harm would it do?) just to offer some counters.
But the argument doesn't have to discard any results thus far (though the ones that voted amid the full knowledge there was a pandemic ongoing, and primaries like Iowa should certainly be up for consideration). It could simply be applied to the primaries that are yet to come. Which completely circumvents the "insurmountable barrier" you posited.
|
On April 08 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 12:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 07:01 ChristianS wrote: [quote] I guess the bolded part is where I’m confused. Everybody got really mad when the DNC made the “cigar smoke-filled back room” argument in court (that is, that the Democratic Party is a private organization with no legal obligation to act democratically). The obvious alternative is to create just such legal obligations, i.e. give the government authority to ensure their process is democratic.
There are logistical reasons you’d want parties to coordinate primaries with state governments anyway (e.g. ensure all the state’s primary elections occur on the same day, and can use the same polling places/workers, ballots, etc.), but even as a matter of free and fair elections, it really doesn’t make sense for parties to have the freedom to unilaterally cancel/postpone elections as they see fit. You’re painting this as some inept concession by Democrats, but it seems like exactly how the process should work. Democratically elected state governments should be in charge of election infrastructure, not private parties.
In this case, the DNC could always announce “we’re refusing to acknowledge the Wisconsin primary, will not count the votes, and encourage all Wisconsin voters to stay home.” Maybe they should! But the ballots are probably already printed, including the Democratic primary contests, so “cancelling the primary” wouldn’t really mean anything beyond that anyway. The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel The COVID-19 virus is killing black residents in Cook County at disproportionately high rates, according to early data analyzed by WBEZ.
While black residents make up only 23% of the population in the county, they account for 58% of the COVID-19 deaths. And half of the deceased lived in Chicago, according to data from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election? It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense). As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them. For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic? As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food. So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that? And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election. Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity. With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November. It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups. I mean, I think the insurmountable barrier for you is justifying throwing out what appear to have been fairly administered elections, just because a bad thing happened that you think should make voters reconsider their choice. Iowa is one thing, but CA? TX? NH? Throwing out those results is probably illegal, and definitely a violation of fair play, but it’s also not clear how you’re even going to convince people it’s a good idea. Other than “the contest looked pretty much over by the time the virus hit, but I don’t like the result so I wanna redo it”? Would a national crisis be grounds to throw out a general election result, too? If another pandemic hits in March 2021, should we toss November’s results and re-vote on who’s president? First I'd say "fairly administered" is a stretch at best when you have 7+ hour lines on Texas college campuses. The DNC literally argued in court and won based on the premise they could throw out any votes they want up to and including all of them after a completely flawless primary. So no, it wouldn't be illegal. I can think of plenty of sensible arguments for why Iowa's results should be thrown out, CA results aren't even finalized so simply not certifying them would be an option and NH probably wouldn't mind in the interest of the greater good (what harm would it do?) just to offer some counters. But the argument doesn't have to discard any results thus far (though the ones that voted amid the full knowledge there was a pandemic ongoing, and primaries like Iowa should certainly be up for consideration). It could simply be applied to the primaries that are yet to come. Which completely circumvents the "insurmountable barrier" you posited. It’s worth stating explicitly how big a deal it is for the legitimacy of elections to not throw out a result unless you absolutely have to. We’re probably agreed on this? It’s fundamental to the process that losing parties don’t feel like they just need to drum up a reason for a redo. The NC09 congressional election was redone last year iirc, but that was because one candidate was literally caught paying someone to commit ballot fraud, and even then it took a lot of lawyering to do it. If anybody asks “how hard would it be for a losing candidate to get the result thrown out so they could try again?” the answer should be “basically impossible.”
With that said: I can see some good arguments in the abstract for redoing something like today’s WI primary, if you can show that significant numbers of would-be voters sat it out for their own safety (and you probably can). Even then, it’s sticky. Imagine if some establishment Dem narrowly lost his seat to a progressive primary challenge, and then the party announces they’re throwing the result out. Even if he still loses in round two, won’t it look like the party was trying to rescue their guy? And if he wins the second time around it’ll look even worse.
Logistically, they’d probably have to do it without the benefit of state infrastructure for printing ballots, tracking registered voters, counting and reporting results, etc. And they probably don’t currently have that capability since it’s normally handled by the state. Could they even pull that together by, say, July (to leave enough time for a general election season after the primary)? Especially with everyone furloughed/working from home right now? I’ve never worked in election infrastructure and don’t know the details of it, but it sounds like a pretty big ask.
|
On April 08 2020 14:38 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 12:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] The DNC should not be penalizing and discouraging states from delaying their primary as a start. While Wisconsin is the most recent example it also allows the kinda deflection onto Republicans and process that Illinois and especially Chicago doesn't. Democrats had more than enough information to know that reducing polling stations and putting many in predominately poor and black senior facilities would have devastating impacts that Chicago and Illinois at large are just starting to feel [quote] And now with Milwaukee we're about to see it all over again. I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election? It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense). As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them. For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic? As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food. So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that? And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election. Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity. With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November. It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups. I mean, I think the insurmountable barrier for you is justifying throwing out what appear to have been fairly administered elections, just because a bad thing happened that you think should make voters reconsider their choice. Iowa is one thing, but CA? TX? NH? Throwing out those results is probably illegal, and definitely a violation of fair play, but it’s also not clear how you’re even going to convince people it’s a good idea. Other than “the contest looked pretty much over by the time the virus hit, but I don’t like the result so I wanna redo it”? Would a national crisis be grounds to throw out a general election result, too? If another pandemic hits in March 2021, should we toss November’s results and re-vote on who’s president? First I'd say "fairly administered" is a stretch at best when you have 7+ hour lines on Texas college campuses. The DNC literally argued in court and won based on the premise they could throw out any votes they want up to and including all of them after a completely flawless primary. So no, it wouldn't be illegal. I can think of plenty of sensible arguments for why Iowa's results should be thrown out, CA results aren't even finalized so simply not certifying them would be an option and NH probably wouldn't mind in the interest of the greater good (what harm would it do?) just to offer some counters. But the argument doesn't have to discard any results thus far (though the ones that voted amid the full knowledge there was a pandemic ongoing, and primaries like Iowa should certainly be up for consideration). It could simply be applied to the primaries that are yet to come. Which completely circumvents the "insurmountable barrier" you posited. It’s worth stating explicitly how big a deal it is for the legitimacy of elections to not throw out a result unless you absolutely have to. We’re probably agreed on this? It’s fundamental to the process that losing parties don’t feel like they just need to drum up a reason for a redo. The NC09 congressional election was redone last year iirc, but that was because one candidate was literally caught paying someone to commit ballot fraud, and even then it took a lot of lawyering to do it. If anybody asks “how hard would it be for a losing candidate to get the result thrown out so they could try again?” the answer should be “basically impossible.”
I argued it was a big deal at least as far back as 2016, when Democrats used it to defend themselves against charges of a fraudulent primary. Democrats essentially argued that it can't be fraudulent because the voting is inconsequential to the legitimacy of the chosen nominee. It should have been addressed then/since and Democrats refused to.
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +With that said: I can see some good arguments in the abstract for redoing something like today’s WI primary, if you can show that significant numbers of would-be voters sat it out for their own safety (and you probably can). Even then, it’s sticky. Imagine if some establishment Dem narrowly lost his seat to a progressive primary challenge, and then the party announces they’re throwing the result out. Even if he still loses in round two, won’t it look like the party was trying to rescue their guy? And if he wins the second time around it’ll look even worse. I don't think there's a point in arguing specifics over whether certain states should be thrown out unless the delaying and a safe voting plan for all future contests (as well as a fresh set of 1 on 1 debates focused on the current circumstances) are already agreed on as the most sensible way forward as of now. + Show Spoiler +Logistically, they’d probably have to do it without the benefit of state infrastructure for printing ballots, tracking registered voters, counting and reporting results, etc. And they probably don’t currently have that capability since it’s normally handled by the state. Could they even pull that together by, say, July (to leave enough time for a general election season after the primary)? Especially with everyone furloughed/working from home right now? I’ve never worked in election infrastructure and don’t know the details of it, but it sounds like a pretty big ask. I recognize there are logistical concerns that have to be worked out both for the rest of the primaries and the general election. If the question is "is it possible for a competent group of people with adequate funding to accomplish the task" my answer would be certainly. If you're asking whether Democrats can do it, my point is that I don't think they can based on their actions, and I'm not sure they even want to based on their politics. That said, switching the Dem primary, let alone the national election to voting that will be considered safe, fair, and verifiable by any reasonable standard is a major endeavor (in part because the US is so far behind every other industrialized nation on this front) that should have been started more than a month ago, and becomes increasingly infeasible as each day passes.
|
|
Great, now we have two sexual assaulting old white douchenozzle conservatives running for president.
I'm not voting for either, I can't bring myself to. "Vote blue because fuck you" seems a more apt slogan than what they've been peddling.
|
I can’t imagine what other context would be necessary.
On April 08 2020 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 14:38 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 12:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 09:52 ChristianS wrote:On April 08 2020 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 08:53 ChristianS wrote: [quote] I guess we’re changing subject away from the WI primary? No I think they both speak to the issue I've already raised. Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to handle even their own primaries from Iowa, to Illinois, to Wisconsin. As well as the debilitating nature of the "Republicans are worse/it's their fault/that's the system" crutch. I don’t know much about the DNC penalizing primary delays stuff. But my understanding was that they were concerned that states would move their primary past the convention, and they were awarding less delegates in that case. Of course now they’re probably delaying the convention anyway, but I don’t think that was an expected outcome at the time.
Am I misinformed? And how do you think those primaries should have been handled instead?
Vox reported the DNC still pressuring states not to delay their primary at the end of March. Instead that they should slap together an alternative in places like Wisconsin without delaying. In a statement to Vox, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “We will continue to monitor the situation and work with state parties around their delegate selection plans, and if states move beyond the June 9th window stated in our rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to discuss and determine next steps.”
What those next steps are remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the DNC is making it plain that it doesn’t want states postponing primaries at all. Being incapable of managing their own primaries, and too incompetent/dependent on good faith process with Republicans, and the rest bodes poorly for a general election against a President they tried to impeach (and failed) for manipulating the 2020 election. You’re making me dizzy. Okay, so in Wisconsin, my understanding is that the state government is in charge of administering the primary election on a date previously agreed upon by the state and both parties. As the DNC infamously pointed out after 2016, the Democratic Party is under no legal obligation to treat the outcome of these elections as anything but advisory, but it is not within their power to cancel the election. I’m arguing that this is as it should be - state governments should be in charge of administration of primary elections, not private parties. I’m not sure what you’re arguing should be the system. In these other primaries (Ohio, Illinois, maybe others?) I’m less clear on what happened, but it sounds like the DNC bylaws have rules in place to discourage delaying primaries (especially to after the convention), and until at least recently the DNC was encouraging states to pursue alternatives to postponement. It’s not yet clear what would actually happen if such postponement occurred, but the DNC would have to change the bylaws to prevent penalization. I don’t know enough to have strong opinions here. What are these alternatives? An all-mail-in primary sounds perfectly safe to me, and wouldn’t require postponement, but maybe there are reasons that wasn’t feasible? In retrospect the DNC probably should have gotten on board with postponement sooner, but the same is true of virtually everything that’s been delayed/cancelled in this epidemic, no? You are presumably arguing that they should have agreed to postponement and changed the bylaws. But specifically, what do you think should be done in these cases? Indefinite postponement? Delay however long it would take to implement an all-mail-in election? It's all one long argument with many examples of the nefarious nature of the Republican party/government institutions/systems built on exploitation and dehumanizing vulnerable populations and the incompetence/ incapability/cynical political calculations that Democrats demonstrate in their futile efforts to stop Republicans as representatives of those populations (but mostly affluent white neoliberals in the practical sense). As to what the DNC and Democrats should have done? Called to delay the primaries before they criticized Trump for acting inadequately so there could be a national mail-in primary later in the year after several more debates with the new circumstances this election is being conducted under front and center in them. For example how does Biden's plan for employer based health insurance hold up in this pandemic, how about whether we need a federal livable wage and adequate housing for those without it? How do the candidates responses compare to their campaign before the pandemic? As I discussed with Nyx, the "100 million people that like their private employer based health insurance" hits different during a pandemic where millions of those people are left in the cold without insurance, secure housing, or even food. So to be clear, even if they could implement something like an all-mail-in election without postponing, they should postpone anyway because the pandemic qualifies as “new circumstances”? Do we redo the primaries that already concluded, then, too? And more generally, how big should a national crisis be to qualify for hitting the reset button like that? And how do they handle states like Wisconsin where the primary administration is handled by the government, not the party? I haven’t yet heard what you think should be the system if not the government administering the election. Before we tackle that I think it's important to agree on the premise. Presuming that, I'm confident there are better ways to find a solution than me pitching alone to work that out. My contribution to that discussion I think has value, but isn't determinative of the preceding points validity. With that in mind, I think there are a variety of approaches worth consideration. Generally speaking though, being able to implement a nation-wide mail-in (with supplemental in-person and other ADA, houseless, etc. accommodations) primary would rectify the questionable results of primaries like Iowa, provide a verifiable paper trail for validity, demonstrate competency to confront a crisis/Republican interference, enfranchise millions of voters, and serve as a model/seed for a general election voting strategy we'll likely need to ramp up/expand in November. It would stand in stark contrast to what we've seen from both parties thus far but I don't propose it without expectations it would face resistance from a variety of interest groups. I mean, I think the insurmountable barrier for you is justifying throwing out what appear to have been fairly administered elections, just because a bad thing happened that you think should make voters reconsider their choice. Iowa is one thing, but CA? TX? NH? Throwing out those results is probably illegal, and definitely a violation of fair play, but it’s also not clear how you’re even going to convince people it’s a good idea. Other than “the contest looked pretty much over by the time the virus hit, but I don’t like the result so I wanna redo it”? Would a national crisis be grounds to throw out a general election result, too? If another pandemic hits in March 2021, should we toss November’s results and re-vote on who’s president? First I'd say "fairly administered" is a stretch at best when you have 7+ hour lines on Texas college campuses. The DNC literally argued in court and won based on the premise they could throw out any votes they want up to and including all of them after a completely flawless primary. So no, it wouldn't be illegal. I can think of plenty of sensible arguments for why Iowa's results should be thrown out, CA results aren't even finalized so simply not certifying them would be an option and NH probably wouldn't mind in the interest of the greater good (what harm would it do?) just to offer some counters. But the argument doesn't have to discard any results thus far (though the ones that voted amid the full knowledge there was a pandemic ongoing, and primaries like Iowa should certainly be up for consideration). It could simply be applied to the primaries that are yet to come. Which completely circumvents the "insurmountable barrier" you posited. It’s worth stating explicitly how big a deal it is for the legitimacy of elections to not throw out a result unless you absolutely have to. We’re probably agreed on this? It’s fundamental to the process that losing parties don’t feel like they just need to drum up a reason for a redo. The NC09 congressional election was redone last year iirc, but that was because one candidate was literally caught paying someone to commit ballot fraud, and even then it took a lot of lawyering to do it. If anybody asks “how hard would it be for a losing candidate to get the result thrown out so they could try again?” the answer should be “basically impossible.” I argued it was a big deal at least as far back as 2016, when Democrats used it to defend themselves against charges of a fraudulent primary. Democrats essentially argued that it can't be fraudulent because the voting is inconsequential to the legitimacy of the chosen nominee. It should have been addressed then/since and Democrats refused to. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +With that said: I can see some good arguments in the abstract for redoing something like today’s WI primary, if you can show that significant numbers of would-be voters sat it out for their own safety (and you probably can). Even then, it’s sticky. Imagine if some establishment Dem narrowly lost his seat to a progressive primary challenge, and then the party announces they’re throwing the result out. Even if he still loses in round two, won’t it look like the party was trying to rescue their guy? And if he wins the second time around it’ll look even worse. I don't think there's a point in arguing specifics over whether certain states should be thrown out unless the delaying and a safe voting plan for all future contests (as well as a fresh set of 1 on 1 debates focused on the current circumstances) are already agreed on as the most sensible way forward as of now. + Show Spoiler +Logistically, they’d probably have to do it without the benefit of state infrastructure for printing ballots, tracking registered voters, counting and reporting results, etc. And they probably don’t currently have that capability since it’s normally handled by the state. Could they even pull that together by, say, July (to leave enough time for a general election season after the primary)? Especially with everyone furloughed/working from home right now? I’ve never worked in election infrastructure and don’t know the details of it, but it sounds like a pretty big ask. I recognize there are logistical concerns that have to be worked out both for the rest of the primaries and the general election. If the question is "is it possible for a competent group of people with adequate funding to accomplish the task" my answer would be certainly. If you're asking whether Democrats can do it, my point is that I don't think they can based on their actions, and I'm not sure they even want to based on their politics. That said, switching the Dem primary, let alone the national election to voting that will be considered safe, fair, and verifiable by any reasonable standard is a major endeavor (in part because the US is so far behind every other industrialized nation on this front) that should have been started more than a month ago, and becomes increasingly infeasible as each day passes. ...that’s not what they argued. I can’t tell if you’re intentionally strawmanning, or if you actually think the DNC’s official position is (edit: bolded) that voting is inconsequential to the legitimacy of the nominee.
|
Finally! Thank you for the run, Bernie, but just like last time you totally hurt your movement by making everyone watch your campaign crumble into irrelevance.
|
|
|
|