|
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 June 09 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2023 23:44 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 20:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Wouldn't something like "I wish the Democrats had had a serious primary (assuming one doesn't occur), but I understand that some potential, up-and-coming candidates might not want to jeopardize their political future by challenging the incumbent and current leader of the party right now - especially when that person is Joe Biden, who has beaten the almost-certain-to-be-Republican-nominee Donald Trump once already" be a reasonable stance to take without needing crazy mental gymnastics? In four years, the field will be clear for new primary candidates anyway. I mean I think those are already pretty ridiculous, but also mostly standard gymnastics for US politics. I'm more referencing how Democrat's primary is going to be observably less democratic than the Republicans who are supposed to be nominating the guy destroying democracy. I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, + Show Spoiler +but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent).
If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Besides not hosting debates (which is typically rationalized by no other candidates meeting the polling/funding thresholds, not some manufactured bs anti-democratic "tradition") the current plan is to disregard votes from Iowa and New Hampshire. That's not to say I don't fully expect Democrats to rationalize that, but that the better RFK Jr. (and Williamson to a lesser degree) poll (and/or the worse Biden/DeSantis polls) the more ridiculous I expect the rationalizations for a faux Democrat primary to get. I haven’t followed the story much, but my understanding is the Iowa and New Hampshire thing goes something like: Dems: Iowa and New Hampshire, we’re not gonna let you go first any more. Iowa and New Hampshire: screw you, we can schedule it first if we want to. Dems: yeah, but if you do we won’t count the votes for anything. I’m not sure it’s that easy to say what the democratic or undemocratic outcome to that dispute would be. Iowa and New Hampshire have had an outsized influence on presidential nominations for ages because of going first, now the party is trying to take that away and the states are mad about it. There’s a decent chance that their primaries would *still* have more weight than other states even if the party does refuse to count their votes, although if the only challenger is RFK at <25% support it presumably won’t matter much. The primary system is byzantine and unintuitive in general. There are *some* rationales for it working the way it does, but you’re gonna have some trouble convincing me to worry about the poor Iowans not having their voices heard in presidential primaries. Punitively disenfranchising voters in Iowa and New Hampshire for voting is pretty unambiguously undemocratic in the holistic sense.
Seems like you should blame the primary committee in Iowa and New Hampshire then, as they are unwilling to cooperate with whatever rotation scheme the national DNC has come up with to give all states a shot at being the first. The national DNC has no power to tell Iowa and New Hampshire when or how to hold their primaries, but does have the power to disregard their delegates. If Iowa and New Hampshire prefer to be first than to have their delegates counted, then so be it...
That said, the primaries being so very clearly outside of a clear and fair process beholden to the wims of the party, is obviously problematic in a 2-party system where the parties hold so much power. I don't really know how you'd solve it without a total rewrite of the constitution, which while necessary, is not going to happen any time soon.
|
On June 09 2023 01:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 23:44 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I mean I think those are already pretty ridiculous, but also mostly standard gymnastics for US politics.
I'm more referencing how Democrat's primary is going to be observably less democratic than the Republicans who are supposed to be nominating the guy destroying democracy. I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, + Show Spoiler +but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent).
If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Besides not hosting debates (which is typically rationalized by no other candidates meeting the polling/funding thresholds, not some manufactured bs anti-democratic "tradition") the current plan is to disregard votes from Iowa and New Hampshire. That's not to say I don't fully expect Democrats to rationalize that, but that the better RFK Jr. (and Williamson to a lesser degree) poll (and/or the worse Biden/DeSantis polls) the more ridiculous I expect the rationalizations for a faux Democrat primary to get. I haven’t followed the story much, but my understanding is the Iowa and New Hampshire thing goes something like: Dems: Iowa and New Hampshire, we’re not gonna let you go first any more. Iowa and New Hampshire: screw you, we can schedule it first if we want to. Dems: yeah, but if you do we won’t count the votes for anything. I’m not sure it’s that easy to say what the democratic or undemocratic outcome to that dispute would be. Iowa and New Hampshire have had an outsized influence on presidential nominations for ages because of going first, now the party is trying to take that away and the states are mad about it. There’s a decent chance that their primaries would *still* have more weight than other states even if the party does refuse to count their votes, although if the only challenger is RFK at <25% support it presumably won’t matter much. The primary system is byzantine and unintuitive in general. There are *some* rationales for it working the way it does, but you’re gonna have some trouble convincing me to worry about the poor Iowans not having their voices heard in presidential primaries. Punitively disenfranchising voters in Iowa and New Hampshire for voting is pretty unambiguously undemocratic in the holistic sense. Seems like you should blame the primary committee in Iowa and New Hampshire then, + Show Spoiler +as they are unwilling to cooperate with whatever rotation scheme the national DNC has come up with to give all states a shot at being the first. The national DNC has no power to tell Iowa and New Hampshire when or how to hold their primaries, but does have the power to disregard their delegates. If Iowa and New Hampshire prefer to be first than to have their delegates counted, then so be it...
That said, the primaries being so very clearly outside of a clear and fair process beholden to the wims of the party, is obviously problematic in a 2-party system where the parties hold so much power. I don't really know how you'd solve it without a total rewrite of the constitution, which while necessary, is not going to happen any time soon. Those would still be Democrats disenfranchising their voters.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 09 2023 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2023 01:22 Acrofales wrote:On June 09 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 23:44 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, + Show Spoiler +but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent).
If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Besides not hosting debates (which is typically rationalized by no other candidates meeting the polling/funding thresholds, not some manufactured bs anti-democratic "tradition") the current plan is to disregard votes from Iowa and New Hampshire. That's not to say I don't fully expect Democrats to rationalize that, but that the better RFK Jr. (and Williamson to a lesser degree) poll (and/or the worse Biden/DeSantis polls) the more ridiculous I expect the rationalizations for a faux Democrat primary to get. I haven’t followed the story much, but my understanding is the Iowa and New Hampshire thing goes something like: Dems: Iowa and New Hampshire, we’re not gonna let you go first any more. Iowa and New Hampshire: screw you, we can schedule it first if we want to. Dems: yeah, but if you do we won’t count the votes for anything. I’m not sure it’s that easy to say what the democratic or undemocratic outcome to that dispute would be. Iowa and New Hampshire have had an outsized influence on presidential nominations for ages because of going first, now the party is trying to take that away and the states are mad about it. There’s a decent chance that their primaries would *still* have more weight than other states even if the party does refuse to count their votes, although if the only challenger is RFK at <25% support it presumably won’t matter much. The primary system is byzantine and unintuitive in general. There are *some* rationales for it working the way it does, but you’re gonna have some trouble convincing me to worry about the poor Iowans not having their voices heard in presidential primaries. Punitively disenfranchising voters in Iowa and New Hampshire for voting is pretty unambiguously undemocratic in the holistic sense. Seems like you should blame the primary committee in Iowa and New Hampshire then, + Show Spoiler +as they are unwilling to cooperate with whatever rotation scheme the national DNC has come up with to give all states a shot at being the first. The national DNC has no power to tell Iowa and New Hampshire when or how to hold their primaries, but does have the power to disregard their delegates. If Iowa and New Hampshire prefer to be first than to have their delegates counted, then so be it...
That said, the primaries being so very clearly outside of a clear and fair process beholden to the wims of the party, is obviously problematic in a 2-party system where the parties hold so much power. I don't really know how you'd solve it without a total rewrite of the constitution, which while necessary, is not going to happen any time soon. Those would still be Democrats disenfranchising their voters.
I mean, if we’re opening up the criticism to state-level Dems, I’d absolutely say they’re disenfranchising people by insisting on the first-in-the-nation thing. Entitled assholes who have had outside influence for decades are often shitty about it when you try to take it away.
I’m also open to “This entire primary system is shitty and should be replaced” but I don’t have a very clear idea of what it should be instead.
|
On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 20:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 20:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Democratic primary is probably going to be a dud in a variety of ways but there are some wildcard possibilities.
One question is how much of a coronation for someone the majority of the party didn't even want to run Dem voters will stomach?
Democrats going all-in on an obviously antidemocratic primary side by side with campaigning against Trump destroying democracy is going to test people's mental and rhetorical gymnastics for sure though. Wouldn't something like "I wish the Democrats had had a serious primary (assuming one doesn't occur), but I understand that some potential, up-and-coming candidates might not want to jeopardize their political future by challenging the incumbent and current leader of the party right now - especially when that person is Joe Biden, who has beaten the almost-certain-to-be-Republican-nominee Donald Trump once already" be a reasonable stance to take without needing crazy mental gymnastics? In four years, the field will be clear for new primary candidates anyway. I mean I think those are already pretty ridiculous, but also mostly standard gymnastics for US politics. I'm more referencing how Democrat's primary is going to be observably less democratic than the Republicans who are supposed to be nominating the guy destroying democracy. I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent). If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that.
Being hellbent on reelecting the guy that 70% of the country and 51% of Democrats don't even want to run is pretty inherently undemocratic. Sure it's standard to rally around the incumbent and try to shut out challengers but that also ignores the reality that the incumbent usually doesn't have the majority of even his own party not wanting them to seek reelection. I agree with GH that some mental gymnastics are being done here. "Our unpopular guy has the best chance at defeating your unpopular guy and your unpopular guy wants to destroy Democracy so we are supporting Democracy by supporting our unpopular guy." It's an "end justifies the means" argument which is fine. But let's not pretend at the end of the day they're not trying to give the people what they don't want.
|
On June 09 2023 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2023 01:22 Acrofales wrote:On June 09 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 23:44 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, + Show Spoiler +but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent).
If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Besides not hosting debates (which is typically rationalized by no other candidates meeting the polling/funding thresholds, not some manufactured bs anti-democratic "tradition") the current plan is to disregard votes from Iowa and New Hampshire. That's not to say I don't fully expect Democrats to rationalize that, but that the better RFK Jr. (and Williamson to a lesser degree) poll (and/or the worse Biden/DeSantis polls) the more ridiculous I expect the rationalizations for a faux Democrat primary to get. I haven’t followed the story much, but my understanding is the Iowa and New Hampshire thing goes something like: Dems: Iowa and New Hampshire, we’re not gonna let you go first any more. Iowa and New Hampshire: screw you, we can schedule it first if we want to. Dems: yeah, but if you do we won’t count the votes for anything. I’m not sure it’s that easy to say what the democratic or undemocratic outcome to that dispute would be. Iowa and New Hampshire have had an outsized influence on presidential nominations for ages because of going first, now the party is trying to take that away and the states are mad about it. There’s a decent chance that their primaries would *still* have more weight than other states even if the party does refuse to count their votes, although if the only challenger is RFK at <25% support it presumably won’t matter much. The primary system is byzantine and unintuitive in general. There are *some* rationales for it working the way it does, but you’re gonna have some trouble convincing me to worry about the poor Iowans not having their voices heard in presidential primaries. Punitively disenfranchising voters in Iowa and New Hampshire for voting is pretty unambiguously undemocratic in the holistic sense. Seems like you should blame the primary committee in Iowa and New Hampshire then, + Show Spoiler +as they are unwilling to cooperate with whatever rotation scheme the national DNC has come up with to give all states a shot at being the first. The national DNC has no power to tell Iowa and New Hampshire when or how to hold their primaries, but does have the power to disregard their delegates. If Iowa and New Hampshire prefer to be first than to have their delegates counted, then so be it...
That said, the primaries being so very clearly outside of a clear and fair process beholden to the wims of the party, is obviously problematic in a 2-party system where the parties hold so much power. I don't really know how you'd solve it without a total rewrite of the constitution, which while necessary, is not going to happen any time soon. Those would still be Democrats disenfranchising their voters.
If my child insists on wanting to eat spaghetti and meatballs in their bed and I insist that they may eat spaghetti and meatballs only at the table, that is not me starving my child.
My child has a right to be fed dinner, but that doesn't mean they have a right to be fed dinner under absolutely whatever conditions they please.
In this case it sounds like these states are insisting on having an unfair privilege over other states, and there isn't any leverage to get them to behave well except for extreme leverage. As a parent, I don't like wielding extreme leverage --- I want to wield the gentlest leverage that will still lead to good behavior --- but the solution space for enforcing good behavior doesn't always contain a satisfying option.
|
United States10158 Posts
|
|
|
On June 09 2023 03:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 20:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 20:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Democratic primary is probably going to be a dud in a variety of ways but there are some wildcard possibilities.
One question is how much of a coronation for someone the majority of the party didn't even want to run Dem voters will stomach?
Democrats going all-in on an obviously antidemocratic primary side by side with campaigning against Trump destroying democracy is going to test people's mental and rhetorical gymnastics for sure though. Wouldn't something like "I wish the Democrats had had a serious primary (assuming one doesn't occur), but I understand that some potential, up-and-coming candidates might not want to jeopardize their political future by challenging the incumbent and current leader of the party right now - especially when that person is Joe Biden, who has beaten the almost-certain-to-be-Republican-nominee Donald Trump once already" be a reasonable stance to take without needing crazy mental gymnastics? In four years, the field will be clear for new primary candidates anyway. I mean I think those are already pretty ridiculous, but also mostly standard gymnastics for US politics. I'm more referencing how Democrat's primary is going to be observably less democratic than the Republicans who are supposed to be nominating the guy destroying democracy. I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent). If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Being hellbent on reelecting the guy that 70% of the country and 51% of Democrats don't even want to run is pretty inherently undemocratic. Sure it's standard to rally around the incumbent and try to shut out challengers but that also ignores the reality that the incumbent usually doesn't have the majority of even his own party not wanting them to seek reelection. I agree with GH that some mental gymnastics are being done here. "Our unpopular guy has the best chance at defeating your unpopular guy and your unpopular guy wants to destroy Democracy so we are supporting Democracy by supporting our unpopular guy." It's an "end justifies the means" argument which is fine. But let's not pretend at the end of the day they're not trying to give the people what they don't want.
I remember several months back talking through the nature of “systemic” problems, and how you can get situations where problems arise out of the rules by which people interact, without anybody in particular really being the *cause* per se? This seems like a fantastic example of it. For a primary challenge you need:
1) a candidate who wants to run, who
2) the voters want as president more than the incumbent.
We don’t have both of those things. The fact that most people (including me!) think it would be cool if we did doesn’t change that fact, and it’s not necessarily undemocratic that both conditions are not met.
Why aren’t they met? A lot of reasons. Qualified candidates don’t really want to stake their careers on challenging an incumbent when it’s easier to just wait and run for an open seat. Voters tend to favor incumbents for a wide variety of reasons. Primary voters also want a candidate who will win, so that incumbent advantage is self-reinforcing in a primary.
If by undemocratic you just mean “This system frequently does not produce the outcomes voters would like,” then sure! Some of those outcomes are impossible, some of them are held up by the system unnecessarily for reasons both sinister and mundane. I’m not saying “a better system doesn’t exist,” but on the other hand “The people often don’t get what they want” is just not a very useful observation.
Edit: Maybe this would be helpful: if you say “This sucks man, most people don’t want Biden to run again for a variety of good reasons, and yet he’s pretty much guaranteed to be the nominee,” I’m right there with you. But if you then say “If Democrats *really* valued democracy, they would…” I can’t finish the sentence. If you can, that might help me see where you and/or GH are coming from.
|
It only matters if they end up getting redrawn. Several states have had their courts strike down gerrymandered districts, but they have no means of enforcement so they get redrawn the same way until the elections come and then nothing changes.
Ohio and North Carolina have had this happen, but I'm sure there are other instances.
|
On June 09 2023 04:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2023 03:37 BlackJack wrote:On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 20:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 20:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Democratic primary is probably going to be a dud in a variety of ways but there are some wildcard possibilities.
One question is how much of a coronation for someone the majority of the party didn't even want to run Dem voters will stomach?
Democrats going all-in on an obviously antidemocratic primary side by side with campaigning against Trump destroying democracy is going to test people's mental and rhetorical gymnastics for sure though. Wouldn't something like "I wish the Democrats had had a serious primary (assuming one doesn't occur), but I understand that some potential, up-and-coming candidates might not want to jeopardize their political future by challenging the incumbent and current leader of the party right now - especially when that person is Joe Biden, who has beaten the almost-certain-to-be-Republican-nominee Donald Trump once already" be a reasonable stance to take without needing crazy mental gymnastics? In four years, the field will be clear for new primary candidates anyway. I mean I think those are already pretty ridiculous, but also mostly standard gymnastics for US politics. I'm more referencing how Democrat's primary is going to be observably less democratic than the Republicans who are supposed to be nominating the guy destroying democracy. I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent). If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Being hellbent on reelecting the guy that 70% of the country and 51% of Democrats don't even want to run is pretty inherently undemocratic. Sure it's standard to rally around the incumbent and try to shut out challengers but that also ignores the reality that the incumbent usually doesn't have the majority of even his own party not wanting them to seek reelection. I agree with GH that some mental gymnastics are being done here. "Our unpopular guy has the best chance at defeating your unpopular guy and your unpopular guy wants to destroy Democracy so we are supporting Democracy by supporting our unpopular guy." It's an "end justifies the means" argument which is fine. But let's not pretend at the end of the day they're not trying to give the people what they don't want. + Show Spoiler +I remember several months back talking through the nature of “systemic” problems, and how you can get situations where problems arise out of the rules by which people interact, without anybody in particular really being the *cause* per se? This seems like a fantastic example of it. For a primary challenge you need:
1) a candidate who wants to run, who
2) the voters want as president more than the incumbent.
We don’t have both of those things. The fact that most people (including me!) think it would be cool if we did doesn’t change that fact, and it’s not necessarily undemocratic that both conditions are not met.
Why aren’t they met? A lot of reasons. Qualified candidates don’t really want to stake their careers on challenging an incumbent when it’s easier to just wait and run for an open seat. Voters tend to favor incumbents for a wide variety of reasons. Primary voters also want a candidate who will win, so that incumbent advantage is self-reinforcing in a primary.
If by undemocratic you just mean “This system frequently does not produce the outcomes voters would like,” then sure! Some of those outcomes are impossible, some of them are held up by the system unnecessarily for reasons both sinister and mundane. I’m not saying “a better system doesn’t exist,” but on the other hand “The people often don’t get what they want” is just not a very useful observation. Edit: Maybe this would be helpful: if you say “This sucks man, most people don’t want Biden to run again for a variety of good reasons, and yet he’s pretty much guaranteed to be the nominee,” I’m right there with you. But if you then say “If Democrats *really* valued democracy, they would…” I can’t finish the sentence. If you can, that might help me see where you and/or GH are coming from.
...they would be unrecognizable and/or implode imo. Assuming you mean domestically, coups and such notwithstanding, the insider trading/regulating businesses they profit from alone would be decimating.
|
|
|
On June 09 2023 04:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2023 03:37 BlackJack wrote:On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 20:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 20:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Democratic primary is probably going to be a dud in a variety of ways but there are some wildcard possibilities.
One question is how much of a coronation for someone the majority of the party didn't even want to run Dem voters will stomach?
Democrats going all-in on an obviously antidemocratic primary side by side with campaigning against Trump destroying democracy is going to test people's mental and rhetorical gymnastics for sure though. Wouldn't something like "I wish the Democrats had had a serious primary (assuming one doesn't occur), but I understand that some potential, up-and-coming candidates might not want to jeopardize their political future by challenging the incumbent and current leader of the party right now - especially when that person is Joe Biden, who has beaten the almost-certain-to-be-Republican-nominee Donald Trump once already" be a reasonable stance to take without needing crazy mental gymnastics? In four years, the field will be clear for new primary candidates anyway. I mean I think those are already pretty ridiculous, but also mostly standard gymnastics for US politics. I'm more referencing how Democrat's primary is going to be observably less democratic than the Republicans who are supposed to be nominating the guy destroying democracy. I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent). If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Being hellbent on reelecting the guy that 70% of the country and 51% of Democrats don't even want to run is pretty inherently undemocratic. Sure it's standard to rally around the incumbent and try to shut out challengers but that also ignores the reality that the incumbent usually doesn't have the majority of even his own party not wanting them to seek reelection. I agree with GH that some mental gymnastics are being done here. "Our unpopular guy has the best chance at defeating your unpopular guy and your unpopular guy wants to destroy Democracy so we are supporting Democracy by supporting our unpopular guy." It's an "end justifies the means" argument which is fine. But let's not pretend at the end of the day they're not trying to give the people what they don't want. I remember several months back talking through the nature of “systemic” problems, and how you can get situations where problems arise out of the rules by which people interact, without anybody in particular really being the *cause* per se? This seems like a fantastic example of it. For a primary challenge you need: 1) a candidate who wants to run, who 2) the voters want as president more than the incumbent. We don’t have both of those things. The fact that most people (including me!) think it would be cool if we did doesn’t change that fact, and it’s not necessarily undemocratic that both conditions are not met. Why aren’t they met? A lot of reasons. Qualified candidates don’t really want to stake their careers on challenging an incumbent when it’s easier to just wait and run for an open seat. Voters tend to favor incumbents for a wide variety of reasons. Primary voters also want a candidate who will win, so that incumbent advantage is self-reinforcing in a primary. If by undemocratic you just mean “This system frequently does not produce the outcomes voters would like,” then sure! Some of those outcomes are impossible, some of them are held up by the system unnecessarily for reasons both sinister and mundane. I’m not saying “a better system doesn’t exist,” but on the other hand “The people often don’t get what they want” is just not a very useful observation. Edit: Maybe this would be helpful: if you say “This sucks man, most people don’t want Biden to run again for a variety of good reasons, and yet he’s pretty much guaranteed to be the nominee,” I’m right there with you. But if you then say “If Democrats *really* valued democracy, they would…” I can’t finish the sentence. If you can, that might help me see where you and/or GH are coming from.
If Democrats really valued democracy they would hold primary debates, would be a start. A large reason there are no other candidates is because they can expect blowback from the party establishment if they crossed Biden as the preferred candidate. It's somewhat of a chicken or an egg game where you're insinuating the party is not trying to destroy any challengers to Biden, there just doesn't happen to be any. I'm saying there doesn't happen to be any because they know the party would try to destroy them because they've already decided to circle the wagons around Biden.
You're from California. Do you think Newsom really wants to be governor for another 4 years instead of running for President? It can't be nearly as fun to govern California now that it's facing a massive budget deficit instead of a massive budget surplus. He also needs to put his Kayfabe with his BFF DeSantis to good use. Do you think voters wouldn't prefer a charismatic polished politician like Newsom compared to bumbling old Joe? I'd say your 2 conditions are well met and the reason Newsom won't run is not because he doesn't want to run but because he doesn't want to ruffle feathers. Although I acknowledge that you do have a catch-all in that not wanting to run to avoid blowback still falls within not wanting to run.
|
Northern Ireland25318 Posts
Aside from anything else some states have a disproportionate influence on the wider electoral cycle by virtue of where they sit.
I see no great outrage in rotating things. Or hell, do your months of campaigning and everyone votes in primaries in one shot.
This kind of staggered way of doing things places undue quid pro quo opportunities early doors as carrying the early states confers early momentum that can sink you or carry you.
Least as far as I can tell
|
|
|
Well here we go: https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-182ac44fde89767bc0c3e634f61686bd
We'll see where it lands. But we all know the phrase. If you shoot the king, you better not miss. Biden and Garland are unlikely to make this play unless it is a firm chance of victory.
MIAMI (AP) — Donald Trump said Thursday that he has been indicted on charges of mishandling classified documents at his Florida estate, igniting a federal prosecution that is arguably the most perilous of multiple legal threats against the former president as he seeks to reclaim the White House.
The Justice Department did not immediately publicly confirm the indictment. But two people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to discuss it publicly said that the indictment included seven criminal counts. One of those people said Trump’s lawyers were contacted by prosecutors shortly before he announced on his Truth Social platform that he had been indicted.
|
Just trump saying it right now?
We should have public record soon if that's the case i would think?
|
@GH: You get how that feels like kind of a cop out, though, right? I mean, fair enough, the undemocratic aspects of the Democratic Party (and US electoral system more generally) are more fundamental and systemic than can be addressed with a change in 2024 primary policies. But you’re the one who came in here touting this specific issue as evidence of their hypocrisy in supposedly valuing democracy! That implies you think something specific they’re doing here is demonstrably undemocratic, in a way that some other policy they could take wouldn’t be. If I ask what that other policy is, and you say “oh, no, the issues are more fundamental and systemic” it kind of feels like you’re not being straight with me, you know? Or, more specifically, it makes it feel like you actually agree that there’s no particular policy here you think the DNC should take instead; your issues with them are unrelated, and you just saw an avenue of attack.
I don’t think that’s true – I think you brought it up because you believe they’re being hypocrites somehow. But I’m definitely struggling to see what it is you’re getting at in this specific case.
On June 09 2023 05:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2023 04:36 ChristianS wrote:On June 09 2023 03:37 BlackJack wrote:On June 08 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 08 2023 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 21:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2023 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2023 20:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Wouldn't something like "I wish the Democrats had had a serious primary (assuming one doesn't occur), but I understand that some potential, up-and-coming candidates might not want to jeopardize their political future by challenging the incumbent and current leader of the party right now - especially when that person is Joe Biden, who has beaten the almost-certain-to-be-Republican-nominee Donald Trump once already" be a reasonable stance to take without needing crazy mental gymnastics? In four years, the field will be clear for new primary candidates anyway. I mean I think those are already pretty ridiculous, but also mostly standard gymnastics for US politics. I'm more referencing how Democrat's primary is going to be observably less democratic than the Republicans who are supposed to be nominating the guy destroying democracy. I think that's just how the incumbent advantage + other candidates thinking about their long-term goals work. We can't force someone to run for president if they don't want to / if they don't think it's worth it / if they want to wait for another election cycle. I don't think it's undemocratic to allow people to not run for president, even if we think other people would do a better job as president than Biden or Trump. While I certainly interpret all that more as structural coercion and corruption built into US institutions/processes, I'm more referring to how they are handling/going to handle RFK Jr.'s campaign. Ah okay. Personally, I think he's a joke of a candidate, but there is still plenty of time to be convinced otherwise. As is to be expected. Thing is, Democratic voters take him more seriously than Republicans take 10 (almost 11) out of 12 of their declared candidates, yet the Republican party (and corporate media) is going to give them + Show Spoiler +(and their supporters, which is basically extended family and people getting paid to help lol) all a more holistically democratic primary than Democrats will give RFK Jr. and ~15-20% of their party voters (or the 50%+ that didn't want Biden to even run). Can you be a bit more specific about what undemocratic measures you think the Dems will take? I doubt they’ll schedule any debates, for instance, but if they claim is “they’re demonstrably more undemocratic than the Republicans” I’d want to see more than that. “Ignore the challenger and pretend there isn’t even a primary” was also the Republican playbook in the 2020 primary (and is pretty standard whenever there’s an incumbent). If your point is just “it’s undemocratic in general how hard it is to unseat an incumbent from the same party as you” that’s maybe true of every elected office in the US. That’s certainly a problem, just not sure if you’re referring to something more specific than that. Being hellbent on reelecting the guy that 70% of the country and 51% of Democrats don't even want to run is pretty inherently undemocratic. Sure it's standard to rally around the incumbent and try to shut out challengers but that also ignores the reality that the incumbent usually doesn't have the majority of even his own party not wanting them to seek reelection. I agree with GH that some mental gymnastics are being done here. "Our unpopular guy has the best chance at defeating your unpopular guy and your unpopular guy wants to destroy Democracy so we are supporting Democracy by supporting our unpopular guy." It's an "end justifies the means" argument which is fine. But let's not pretend at the end of the day they're not trying to give the people what they don't want. I remember several months back talking through the nature of “systemic” problems, and how you can get situations where problems arise out of the rules by which people interact, without anybody in particular really being the *cause* per se? This seems like a fantastic example of it. For a primary challenge you need: 1) a candidate who wants to run, who 2) the voters want as president more than the incumbent. We don’t have both of those things. The fact that most people (including me!) think it would be cool if we did doesn’t change that fact, and it’s not necessarily undemocratic that both conditions are not met. Why aren’t they met? A lot of reasons. Qualified candidates don’t really want to stake their careers on challenging an incumbent when it’s easier to just wait and run for an open seat. Voters tend to favor incumbents for a wide variety of reasons. Primary voters also want a candidate who will win, so that incumbent advantage is self-reinforcing in a primary. If by undemocratic you just mean “This system frequently does not produce the outcomes voters would like,” then sure! Some of those outcomes are impossible, some of them are held up by the system unnecessarily for reasons both sinister and mundane. I’m not saying “a better system doesn’t exist,” but on the other hand “The people often don’t get what they want” is just not a very useful observation. Edit: Maybe this would be helpful: if you say “This sucks man, most people don’t want Biden to run again for a variety of good reasons, and yet he’s pretty much guaranteed to be the nominee,” I’m right there with you. But if you then say “If Democrats *really* valued democracy, they would…” I can’t finish the sentence. If you can, that might help me see where you and/or GH are coming from. If Democrats really valued democracy they would hold primary debates, would be a start. A large reason there are no other candidates is because they can expect blowback from the party establishment if they crossed Biden as the preferred candidate. It's somewhat of a chicken or an egg game where you're insinuating the party is not trying to destroy any challengers to Biden, there just doesn't happen to be any. I'm saying there doesn't happen to be any because they know the party would try to destroy them because they've already decided to circle the wagons around Biden. You're from California. Do you think Newsom really wants to be governor for another 4 years instead of running for President? It can't be nearly as fun to govern California now that it's facing a massive budget deficit instead of a massive budget surplus. He also needs to put his Kayfabe with his BFF DeSantis to good use. Do you think voters wouldn't prefer a charismatic polished politician like Newsom compared to bumbling old Joe? I'd say your 2 conditions are well met and the reason Newsom won't run is not because he doesn't want to run but because he doesn't want to ruffle feathers. Although I acknowledge that you do have a catch-all in that not wanting to run to avoid blowback still falls within not wanting to run.
I can’t join you in wanting a debate because if one actually happened (especially between Biden and fucking RFK Jr.), I’m confident I would think “This is stupid, why are we doing this.” More generally, “democracy” doesn’t mean being given a time slot by some centralized power to make your case for yourself only in prescribed and centrally-approved ways. I don’t buy the premise that DNC-granted access to a debate stage is all that fundamental to a candidate’s viability, and if it was, that would be a problem no even if they chose to grant it liberally in this case.
But I do think you’re inordinately focused on “blowback” from the party (i.e. party leadership) and under-focused on all the other good reasons somebody like Newsom wouldn’t want to take his shot in 2024. There’s a Democratic incumbent! That means there’s already a guy that Democratic voters know and like, a guy who’s going to have an automatic advantage in looking presidential because he *currently is president.*
And what do Democrats want in a presidential candidate more than anything else? They want a Democrat who will win! The incumbent has done that before, and voters know about incumbent advantage, too! If you’re someone like Newsom, do you really want voters viewing you as some kind of traitor who was willing to trash your party’s chances at the White House because you’re too ambitious?
There’s a lot of different mechanisms making it so that when you’ve got a friendly in the White House, it’s an extremely risky career move to try to take them down. Term limits being what they are, it’s virtually always smarter to just wait. And that’s true even before DNC party leaders start leaving flaming bags of shit on your doorstep.
|
On June 09 2023 11:13 StorrZerg wrote:
Just trump saying it right now?
We should have public record soon if that's the case i would think?
His court date is next Tuesday, 2pm eastern. Unless trump says exactly whats in there thats when it'll be released to the public. Everything now is just rumor hearsay or what trump is willing to tell people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
