Democratic caucuses and primaries

SuburbanTurkey said:
The same could be said about the steady drumbeat of catering the party to swing voters.
Click to expand...

Outside of literally making your campaign slogan "Don't vote for me, please I beg you don't vote for me" I can't imagine a more defeatist attitude in politics then "What ever you do, don't reach out to people who aren't already on our side."
 
JoeMorgue said:
Outside of literally making your campaign slogan "Don't vote for me, please I beg you don't vote for me" I can't imagine a more defeatist attitude in politics then "What ever you do, don't reach out to people who aren't already on our side."
Click to expand...

Reaching out to such people carries it's own downside risk, though.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/amy-klobuchar-feeds-trolls-with-pro-life-big-tent-talk/

ETA: In case it isn't clear from the article, you draw fire from your own side's purists, and perhaps rightly so.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
This is the single worst talking point in the history of progressive talking points. Clinton was vastly more ideologically similar to McCain in 2008 than Sanders was to Trump in 2016; we've no reason to expect these defection rates to be similar.
Click to expand...

McCain! Archaic republican. Penny pincher and tight budgets. Old tepublicans: we don't have those anymore. Trump and tea party is all we have left. What did Rabd Paul ever do?

So yes, they were similar. Representing wealth and power.
 
d4m10n said:
In case it isn't clear from the article, you draw fire from your own side's purists, and perhaps rightly so.
Click to expand...

And the Democratic fringes are already running purity tests so the black guy who was a two term President 3 years ago is now almost a Republican he's not "pure enough."

That's the problem with the Purist. I don't believe them.

We elect Bernie and in a few elections he's not going to be pure enough for them either.

It's not a matter of what they want, it's a matter that whatever they have is never going to be good enough.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And the Democratic fringes are already running purity tests so the black guy who was a two term President 3 years ago is now almost a Republican he's not "pure enough."
Click to expand...

Oh, some of us didn't take that long at all.

My opinion of him changed in the time between voting for him and his inauguration. That's 11 years before these other folks got around to it.



That's the problem with the Purist. I don't believe them.



We elect Bernie and in a few elections he's not going to be pure enough for them either.



It's not a matter of what they want, it's a matter that whatever they have is never going to be good enough.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy.

Can you believe these abolitionists? Oh sure, today they say we should just free the slaves. The minute we do that, you watch, they'll want us to treat them like equals or god forbid vote and stuff.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Can you believe these abolitionists? Oh sure, today they say we should just free the slaves. The minute we do that, you watch, they'll want us to treat them like equals or god forbid vote and stuff.
Click to expand...

Not exactly an example of fallacious thinking, since it turned out to be a useful and predictive model of (many) abolitionists' actual end goals.
 
d4m10n said:
Not exactly an example of fallacious thinking, since it turned out to be a useful and predictive model of (many) abolitionists' actual end goals.
Click to expand...
The idea that people's goals will change upon achieving earlier goals in an evolving setting of emerging public attitudes means they are being out of line in some noteworthy way.

That's the fallacy.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The idea that people's goals will change upon achieving earlier goals in an evolving setting of emerging public attitudes means they are being out of line in some noteworthy way.
Click to expand...

We're the anti-abolitionists wrong to fear that abolition would soon lead to results such as the 14th Amendment?

If not, I'm not seeing the fallacy here.
 
d4m10n said:
We're the anti-abolitionists wrong to fear that abolition would soon lead to results such as the 14th Amendment?

If not, I'm not seeing the fallacy here.
Click to expand...
Since you seem to be going out of your way to misconstrue and "gotcha" me across multiple threads lately, I'm gonna make some adjustments to my forum experience.

I hope you continue to enjoy yours.

Take care.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
And the Democratic fringes are already running purity tests so the black guy who was a two term President 3 years ago is now almost a Republican he's not "pure enough."

...We elect Bernie and in a few elections he's not going to be pure enough for them either.
Click to expand...
The shift in perception of Obama occurred after he turned out to govern rather differently from the way he'd campaigned. Do you have some reason why we should expect that kind of change in behavior from Bernie?
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's the problem with the Purist. I don't believe them.

We elect Bernie and in a few elections he's not going to be pure enough for them either.
Click to expand...

Who cares? That should not even be an issue. The point is to beat Trump. That’s the main issue.

All the rest of it: how will he get his policies pushed through Congress? How will the fringe evaluate his legacy? Those things are trivial in comparison!
 
Nevada is shaping up great.

With the Nevada caucuses days away, campaign officials and Democratic activists are increasingly alarmed that they might prove a debacle as damaging as the vote in Iowa, further setting back the party in its urgent effort to coalesce around a nominee to take on President Trump.

Campaigns said they still have not gotten the party to offer even a basic explanation of how key parts of the process will work. Volunteers are reporting problems with the technology that’s been deployed at the last minute to make the vote count smoother. And experts are raising serious questions about an app the party has been feverishly assembling to replace the one scrapped after the meltdown in Iowa.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
d4m10n said:
We're the anti-abolitionists wrong to fear that abolition would soon lead to results such as the 14th Amendment?

If not, I'm not seeing the fallacy here.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the earlier hostility.

What I mean is, when we get to that point, we'll have that later discussion alluded to, too.

We can't have what is desperately needed right now because maybe we'll have to get up off our asses again and do what is desperately needed in the future?

That doesn't fly with me.

While we've still got a lot of work to do to climb out of being a world that treats 90% of its people to squalor, long term we seem to do good on total trajectory, so I'm willing to have that next fight to keep bending the arc of history the right way if you are. In fact it will likely be easier to stop that feared despot that might come along in the future if people can take off work now and then to organize and participate in democracy without losing their house. Tyranny thrives where people suspect and are hostile to each other, see each other as competing over the same resources. Where people have more social trust and belief we can take care of each other, tyrants can't work as easily. That's why so many start with an "outsiders and traitors among us" approach. Usually some totally powerless minority group. But now I'm wandering off...
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Nevada is shaping up great.



Linky.
Click to expand...

May 2020 be the death knell of caucuses.

There is simply no benefit of this system sufficient enough to overwhelm massive downsides of a caucus.

Ranked choice voting can accomplish everything a caucus can with a fraction of the difficulty to implement.
 
Brainster said:
I have tons of respect for Silver and his stats, but I do wonder if we aren't quite a bit off the beaten path in this primary, with Steyer and Bloomberg looming ahead. If you look at his projections for the upcoming primaries and caucuses, he has Bernie winning every state (scroll down).
Click to expand...

I'm sure that having better odds of winning each state isn't the same as winning each state.
 
Trebuchet said:
And if you do, the R's will scream "SOCIALISM" with more relevance than for the other candidates and Trump will win.
Click to expand...

Why? You think Democratic voters will in good numbers be suddenly turned off to Bernie because Fox News call him a socialist?

The Great Zaganza said:
We have to get rid of the whole primary process.
It seems clear that there aren't enough suitable candidates around who are both good campaigners and would make good Presidents.
Click to expand...

I guess one of the flaws of the primary system is that one has to be both, rather than just campaigning for President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom