Democratic caucuses and primaries

pgwenthold said:
Not really, because in order to do so, you have to come up with a clear definition of "democratic," and that just isn't possible.

Martin Gardner used to write a lot about this. In a multi-person run off, there is no inherently "correct" way to select the winner
Click to expand...

Once I read about "the election theorem", I spent a lot less time thinking about how to run the perfect election.

I still think there are better ways, but I know there's no perfect way.

I think in modern America, though, our primary system is particularly bad because of the tendency to push people toward the extremes.
 
I think Sanders is likely to keep chugging along picking up delegates fairly consistently while three moderates - Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar split the moderate vote. Of course, if the moderates and progressives pick a winner now and the others in their camp drop out then they should clean up, right?
 
angrysoba said:
I think Sanders is likely to keep chugging along picking up delegates fairly consistently while three moderates - Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar split the moderate vote. Of course, if the moderates and progressives pick a winner now and the others in their camp drop out then they should clean up, right?
Click to expand...

It's unclear if any other moderate would have the same level of support with Southern black voters that Biden enjoys.

It's also unclear if all these moderate supporters are actually driven primarily by ideological moderation. I'm sure a lot, if not a majority, are, but many may vote for other reasons. I'd be interested to see some polling among the candidates on who they say as their #2 preferred candidate.
 
angrysoba said:
I think Sanders is likely to keep chugging along picking up delegates fairly consistently while three moderates - Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar split the moderate vote. Of course, if the moderates and progressives pick a winner now and the others in their camp drop out then they should clean up, right?
Click to expand...
Sanders might wind up convincing the moderates that a candidate more to the left can win in the General.
Then the moderates will switch their votes to Warren :D
 
I wish it was more likely then not that we would have a feel for likely VP candidates before we basically had to choose who the candidate was going to be.

I think most people on the Left would be at least fairly okay with ticket split between a moderate/centrist and an idealist/progressive and would even out and sand down some of the internal squabbling.

Sanders and Warren ran on a ticket before.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I wish it was more likely then not that we would have a feel for likely VP candidates before we basically had to choose who the candidate was going to be.

I think most people on the Left would be at least fairly okay with ticket split between a moderate/centrist and an idealist/progressive and would even out and sand down some of the internal squabbling.

Sanders and Warren ran on a ticket before.
Click to expand...

VP isn't really a meaningful role unless the President dies or something like that. I get that selecting a VP can have a strategic value, like trying to drum up support from a certain state or certain segment of the electorate, but the VP doesn't meaningfully shape the agenda of the white house unless the President allows it.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
VP isn't really a meaningful role unless the President dies or something like that. I get that selecting a VP can have a strategic value, like trying to drum up support from a certain state or certain segment of the electorate, but the VP doesn't meaningfully shape the agenda of the white house unless the President allows it.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree it's purely symbolic, but sometimes symbolism is useful.

But, to be fair, I've been wrong on this in the past. I would have put good money on us having a black VP to... ease people into it before having a black president, and before Obama would have said the same thing about a female or gay President but now I'm far less sure.

Again we're like at 99.99% for Presidents/VPs all being old white dudes and it's really hard to get any kind of data from a random sampling of "One exception that we've only had one data point after so we have zero way of knowing if it was an anomoly, a trend, a red herring, or a sign of things to come" so... *shrugs* who knows?

So I could be talking out of my ass. I still lean toward thinking that the VP candidates would be a nice piece of information for people to have before the decision is firmly made though.

The one thing we generally don't talk about when picking candidates and is, in my opinion, one of the biggest factors in how well they are going to pick people for key positions, because it's just one of those things that is very hard to judge from this point of view and point in time.

Who's gonna be Candidate X's VP? Their Secretary of State? Who would be their hypothetical SCOTUS pick? Their thises and thats? Can you see this person being approved by the Senate? These are questions I think there is valid, useful information in that don't get asked of them a lot.

A Candidate who (all other base factors being met obviously) who went "Even though I am in competition with these people for the nomination, I recognize that they offer a lot as evidence by their strong support from other people, so even nominate I will discuss potential roles in my future administration with them if they are open to the possibility" would impress me a great deal.

Sanders, Biden, Warren, etc... they don't necessarily have to be President to do good and be useful.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh I agree it's purely symbolic, but sometimes symbolism is useful.

But, to be fair, I've been wrong on this in the past. I would have put good money on us having a black VP to... ease people into it before having a black president, and before Obama would have said the same thing about a female or gay President but now I'm far less sure.

Again we're like at 99.99% for Presidents/VPs all being old white dudes and it's really hard to get any kind of data from a random sampling of "One exception that we've only had one data point after so we have zero way of knowing if it was an anomoly, a trend, a red herring, or a sign of things to come" so... *shrugs* who knows?

So I could be talking out of my ass. I still lean toward thinking that the VP candidates would be a nice piece of information for people to have before the decision is firmly made though.

The one thing we generally don't talk about when picking candidates and is, in my opinion, one of the biggest factors in how well they are going to pick people for key positions, because it's just one of those things that is very hard to judge from this point of view and point in time.

Who's gonna be Candidate X's VP? Their Secretary of State? Who would be their hypothetical SCOTUS pick? Their thises and thats? Can you see this person being approved by the Senate? These are questions I think there is valid, useful information in that don't get asked of them a lot.

A Candidate who (all other base factors being met obviously) who went "Even though I am in competition with these people for the nomination, I recognize that they offer a lot as evidence by their strong support from other people, so even nominate I will discuss potential roles in my future administration with them if they are open to the possibility" would impress me a great deal.

Sanders, Biden, Warren, etc... they don't necessarily have to be President to do good and be useful.
Click to expand...
Biden is only useful inasmuch as he might be the most likely to defeat Trump.(although that might be changing)
Even if he were elected, I suspect his VP would be doing most of the heavy lifting in his administration.

Outside that limited role, he should definitely be in his rocking chair boring his grandchildren with tales of the old days.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
VP isn't really a meaningful role unless the President dies or something like that. I get that selecting a VP can have a strategic value, like trying to drum up support from a certain state or certain segment of the electorate, but the VP doesn't meaningfully shape the agenda of the white house unless the President allows it.
Click to expand...

Two Words: Dick Cheney. It took GWB about seven years to get out from under his thumb.
 
We're in the middle of a massive KlobuCHARGE in NH ;)

EQeMfRSX0AEUWoE


https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1227103902241296384

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/11/us/elections/results-new-hampshire-primary.html
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Oh I agree it's purely symbolic, but sometimes symbolism is useful.

But, to be fair, I've been wrong on this in the past. I would have put good money on us having a black VP to... ease people into it before having a black president, and before Obama would have said the same thing about a female or gay President but now I'm far less sure.

Again we're like at 99.99% for Presidents/VPs all being old white dudes
Click to expand...

I no longer think of all former presidents as old.
 
Bernie Sanders has this one, finished.

There are two local candidates, Bernie, and Elizabeth Warren. And if you know anything about New Hampshire, you know this:

They
Hate
Us
Massholes!
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
VP isn't really a meaningful role unless the President dies or something like that. I get that selecting a VP can have a strategic value, like trying to drum up support from a certain state or certain segment of the electorate, but the VP doesn't meaningfully shape the agenda of the white house unless the President allows it.
Click to expand...


In 2008, my parents commented that their votes were largely based on the Vice Presidents. They assumed that Obama would be assassinated if he won and McCain was too old and sickly to survive the stress of the job.
 
It occurs to me that there are only two candidates that, for me, don't have really big negatives. The negatives:.

Trump:. If you have to ask...
Bernie: socialist.
Biden: old.
Warren:. Not as socialist as bernie. Not as old as Joe. But enough of each to be bad.
Bloomberg: old guy buying his way in.

That leaves

Buttigieg:. Gay, and only office is mayor of South Bend. Makes me nervous for general election.
Klobuchar:. Practically unknown before election.


So what I'm hoping for is Biden's SC firewall doesn't hold so that Amy and Pete can fight for the middle lane before I have to make up my mind in Michigan.


And in the silver lining department, a lot of Bloomberg's negatives might be positives to some Trump voters. Rich, accused racist, old, New Yorker? What's not to like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom