Democratic caucuses and primaries

[Cabbage]

I fully expect my hypothesis (Bernie will prove weak in key swing states) to be tested in November. Hoping it turns out to be false.

Oh, so it's just the evidence before then that you choose to ignore.


I suppose that's something, at least.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Um, no one is suggesting that.

People are suggesting that the parties can choose who stands on a ballot to represent that party.



The idea that any old twit can stick their name on a ballot as representing Party X is strange, to say the least. That's what happens pretty much everywhere else, and (at least here in the UK) we still manage to get Lord Buckethead, or Bob From The Newsagent, standing at elections, with no say from Tories or Labour or anyone else (if they can stump up the fee).

That is not how it works. If you can't make your point without grossly misrepresenting the facts, you must not have a very good point. In order to represent party X you have to win their nomination according to their rules. The party can make rules so it's harder for certain kinds of candidates, sure. But they can't say Joe Smith from Buchanan County can't run. Anyone fulfilling requirements for running may file for the ballot. Equal Protection must apply.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The party can make rules so it's harder for certain kinds of candidates, sure. But they can't say Joe Smith from Buchanan County can't run. Anyone fulfilling requirements for running may file for the ballot.

Equal Protection must apply.

Bollocks. The Parties can do whatever they want. They aren't democracies or part of the democratic process.

We are still stuck in the mindset that the Republican and Democratic (and other parties, I assume the minor parties have primaries/caucus of some sort) Primaries are part of the election process and governed by the same rules; either official rules or unoffical ones and they are not.

The DNC and GOP have no more onus to then a corporation does when choosing its board of directors or CEO. They are answerable to nobody but themselves and whatever percentage of their stockholders want to make an issue of it.

The internal workings of the parties are not democracies.

When the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties go "Which of these 5 candidates do you like best" they are asking for input, not direction or permission no matter what pomp and circumstance they dress it up in.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh, so it's just the evidence before then that you choose to ignore.

You have evidence Sanders can withstand the sort of attacks from the right which I linked to upthread? Let's see it. I'd be surprised to learn he's ever had to do this.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Bollocks. The Parties can do whatever they want. They aren't democracies or part of the democratic process.

Uh...?

We are still stuck in the mindset that the Republican and Democratic (and other parties, I assume the minor parties have primaries/caucus of some sort) Primaries are part of the election process and governed by the same rules; either official rules or unoffical ones and they are not.

Primaries are part of the process of seeking elected office and being imbued with official powers.

That being the case, I'm ok with open requirements.

The DNC and GOP have no more onus to then a corporation does when choosing its board of directors or CEO. They are answerable to nobody but themselves and whatever percentage of their stockholders want to make an issue of it.

Statutory law says you are thoroughly mistaken.

The internal workings of the parties are not democracies.



When the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties go "Which of these 5 candidates do you like best" they are asking for input, not direction or permission no matter what pomp and circumstance they dress it up in.

They must operate within the law.

Furthermore they must follow their own rules or any participant in the process has a valid claim of being defrauded.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Bollocks. The Parties can do whatever they want. They aren't democracies or part of the democratic process.

We are still stuck in the mindset that the Republican and Democratic (and other parties, I assume the minor parties have primaries/caucus of some sort) Primaries are part of the election process and governed by the same rules; either official rules or unoffical ones and they are not.

The DNC and GOP have no more onus to then a corporation does when choosing its board of directors or CEO. They are answerable to nobody but themselves and whatever percentage of their stockholders want to make an issue of it.

The internal workings of the parties are not democracies.

When the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties go "Which of these 5 candidates do you like best" they are asking for input, not direction or permission no matter what pomp and circumstance they dress it up in.

Sure, and voters are free to not support a party that they feel makes undemocratic decisions.

There's an unspoken compact between the major parties and the voting public that they operate as semi-government bodies. Nothing makes them do this, but if they want to remain politically significant, they should respect the primary process.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Sighs*

I and... let's say 5 other guys are deciding we want to run for local... dogcatcher or whatever.

We all get together and agree amongst ourselves that we're going to play a few hands of Texas Hold'Em and whoever wins is the one who's going to run and the other 5 are going to vote for him.

Now please explain to me what we are going to be arrested, prosecuted, indicted, etc for.

That's all this is, just blown up to bigger proportions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's an unspoken compact between the major parties and the voting public that they operate as semi-government bodies. Nothing makes them do this, but if they want to remain politically significant, they should respect the primary process.

I think the voting public takes that "unspoken compact" a lot more seriously then the party leadership does.

The major parties take it seriously just because of the base, unavoidable fact that all things being equal running a candidate with broad popular support just makes everything easier, but make no mistake they are not beholden to it if they think it's not in the party's best interest.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Slight hijack// And I also cannot begin to square this with the Republicans continued insistence that there is nothing they can do when Nazis or racists run as Republicans as if they have no control over their IP or anything.

 

[theprestige]

Um, no one is suggesting that.
People are suggesting that the parties can choose who stands on a ballot to represent that party.

The key thing you have to remember is that standing on a ballot is the central part of the mechanism by which the party chooses who will represent them.

What other mechanism would you propose? Any aspiring party rep gets put to a vote of the party membership? Sooner or later the party members are going to want a say, and that means candidates standing on a ballot. Any mechanism that screens which candidates can stand on a ballot is itself a mechanism of candidates standing on a ballot. Or else deprives the party membership of a voice in the selection process.

If you were designing a process for selecting party representatives, what would you propose, other than party members voting on whoever chooses to put their name forward?

 

[Tolls]

That is not how it works.

If you can't make your point without grossly misrepresenting the facts, you must not have a very good point.

In order to represent party X you have to win their nomination according to their rules.

The party can make rules so it's harder for certain kinds of candidates, sure. But they can't say Joe Smith from Buchanan County can't run. Anyone fulfilling requirements for running may file for the ballot.

Equal Protection must apply.

I never said it was how it works, because patently it isn't.

However the highlighted bit is the part we are talking about.
It's the party rules, and many of us look at them and think "those are a bit daft". Why should a party be forced to allow any old twit to stand for them. Saying "we won't allow loonies to stand for our party" is not some great offence against democracy as the aforementioned loony could stand on their own.

You have minor parties there, do they all have the same rules that any odd-ball can stand as their representative?

 

[Distracted1]

I'd like to revisit one more time with you about your claim that Sanders is the Democratic candidate that scares the rust belt the most.

Have a look at these polling results: https://www.270towin.com/2020-democratic-nomination-polls/

Sanders is:

First in Wisconsin.

Second in Michigan.

Second in Pennsylvania.


Sorry, but your gut feeling is simply not supported by the evidence.

I find your link difficult to parse, but it appears to show that approximately 1/3 of 1/3 of the voters the particular KeyStates prefer Sanders. While a slightly larger percentage of that 1/3 of voters prefer someone else.

This constitutes strong evidence IYO that Sanders can defeat Trump in those States??
Even two thirds of the Dems in those States prefer someone else!


Sanders vs. any other Democrat polls don't do much to determine which party will take a particular State, as the Dems will vote for whomever the Dem is and the Republicans will do the same for the most part.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think the voting public takes that "unspoken compact" a lot more seriously then the party leadership does.

Yeah, that's probably true. People do seemed shocked when they realize how much power resides in how the rules are written and enforced.

If the party leadership pulled some crazy move I think there would be a pretty negative reaction from the rank and file Democrats. Putting the thumb on the scale with rule changes is one thing, but anything blatantly anti-democratic would be received quite poorly.

 

[Trebuchet]

Okay. Well we can forget Super Tuesday as well for Buttigieg. He’s out:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...c-presidential-nominee?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The ballots already having been printed, and in some cases already cast, I'd guess he'll get a fair number of votes anyhow.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Yeah, that's probably true. People do seemed shocked when they realize how much power resides in how the rules are written and enforced.



If the party leadership pulled some crazy move I think there would be a pretty negative reaction from the rank and file Democrats. Putting the thumb on the scale with rule changes is one thing, but anything blatantly anti-democratic would be received quite poorly.

In my and many other jurisdictions, it is state law that the party can take their fee, hand the person their receipt and that's literally it.

There's no way anything but impersonal generic requirements can square with Equal Protection.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The ballots already having been printed, and in some cases already cast, I'd guess he'll get a fair number of votes anyhow.

The timing of his drop is very strange. His campaign has long understood that they would not perform well in SC. Not sure why he didn't want to see it through Super Tuesday.

 

[Cabbage]

You have evidence Sanders can withstand the sort of attacks from the right which I linked to upthread? Let's see it. I'd be surprised to learn he's ever had to do this.

You have evidence that he can't?

 

[d4m10n]

The timing of his drop is very strange. His campaign has long understood that they would not perform well in SC. Not sure why he didn't want to see it through Super Tuesday.

If we see him actively campaigning for a more electable centrist Dem (say, Biden) in the near term it will seem less strange in retrospect.

 

[Cabbage]

I find your link difficult to parse, but it appears to show that approximately 1/3 of 1/3 of the voters the particular KeyStates prefer Sanders. While a slightly larger percentage of that 1/3 of voters prefer someone else.

This constitutes strong evidence IYO that Sanders can defeat Trump in those States??
Even two thirds of the Dems in those States prefer someone else!


Sanders vs. any other Democrat polls don't do much to determine which party will take a particular State, as the Dems will vote for whomever the Dem is and the Republicans will do the same for the most part.

Actually, I wasn't presenting it as evidence that Sanders can beat Trump. I was presenting it as evidence that Sanders isn't the most frightening candidate for the rust belt (I specifically said that was the claim I was addressing). If he was, wouldn't he be hovering around last place?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You have evidence that he can't?

We have exactly the same kind of evidence you have that he can.

Stop demanding that everyone provides absolute facts against your mere opinions.

We've been stuck in this loop with the Sanders supporters for months. Every time anyone says something critical of Sanders we're asked for "proof" as if we're arguing from different point of view then the Sanders supporters.

We don't have to provide you with absolute proof of something to be allowed to have different opinions from you.