Democratic caucuses and primaries

d4m10n said:
Between 50% and 100% of the general election candidates are determined by these "dog and pony" shows every four years.
Click to expand...

Not in my area. Other than the presidential race (which is a foregone conclusion at this point, barring exogenous factors), there was only one office that had two candidates. Data from 2016:

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Incumbents ran in 82.4 percent of seats up for election in 2016.
  • Of the incumbents running for re-election, 79.4 percent did not face primary opposition.
  • In 41.8 percent of general election races, candidates faced no opposition from the other party.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
d4m10n said:
This is some ************* ********, IMO.

If people aren't willing to risk their lives for democracy, they don't deserve to keep it.
Click to expand...

I put my life on the line for the future of my country today, and I didn't even get a no homo bro-job.
 
d4m10n said:
This is some ************* ********, IMO.

If people aren't willing to risk their lives and the lives of everyone they love and those with whom they come into the most incidental contact for democracy, they don't deserve to keep it.
Click to expand...
FTFY.

Just kidding. Nothing can fix that post.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Other than the presidential race (which is a foregone conclusion at this point, barring exogenous factors), there was only one office that had two candidates.
Click to expand...

Okay, I do appreciate the link, but [A] this is a thread (mostly) about the presidency and exogenous factors loom fairly large just at the moment.

When it comes to the presidency in particular, would you agree that the primaries are mostly a dog-and-pony show?
 
Babbylonian said:
Nothing can fix that post.
Click to expand...

I see civilians praising soldiers for putting their lives at risk for democracy on a nearly daily basis; bit weird how civilians are so put off by the idea when it comes to their own lives.

ETA: Is there any reason to believe the science denialists swell folks running Ohio will hold a free and fair election at any point prior to the conventions?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I see civilians praising soldiers for putting their lives at risk for democracy on a nearly daily basis; bit weird how civilians are so put off by the idea when it comes to their own lives and the lives of everyone they love and those with whom they come into the most incidental contact.
Click to expand...
FTFY again.
 
Once again, what makes you think "the lives of everyone they love and those with whom they come into the most incidental contact" will somehow be in less danger come June, when the virus is vastly more prevalent? Are you putting faith in the party of science denial to get math and the timing right?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Once again, what makes you think "the lives of everyone they love and those with whom they come into the most incidental contact" will somehow be in less danger come June, when the virus is vastly more prevalent? Are you putting faith in the party of science denial to get math and the timing right?
Click to expand...
No. Maybe it won't be safe then either. Maybe a system will have to be set up to solve the voting problem sometime in the next few months (we still have a mail system, there's an Internet; we are not entirely without options that minimize viral exposure). Frankly, unless their leadership is insane (some are), both parties should be looking at whether it's a good idea to hold their conventions at all.

All that said, since we know it's not safe right now, your suggestion that either postponing the election primaries or not showing up at a polling station is ruining democracy is, well, pure stupidity.

The parties can still pick their nominees. After all, if there were no clear winners from the primaries, the delegates to the conventions would have full authority (which they could exercise by voting using alternate methods not requiring congregating in a convention center/sports arena) to pick the nominee - and that nominee wouldn't even have to have been on a single state ballot.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
All that said, since we know it's not safe right now, your suggestion that either postponing the election primaries or not showing up at a polling station is ruining democracy is, well, pure stupidity.
Click to expand...

We know it's not safe right now, but we've no idea whether it will be any safer in June, by which point many more people will have been exposed. If we're going to hold a vote in Ohio at some point, why should we prefer early June? Shall we assume the party of science denial and voter suppression is getting good advice and playing it straight on this issue?

ETA: Bit weird to pretend the primaries aren't an important part of the election in a two-party system but whatevs.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
We know it's not safe right now, but we've no idea whether it will be any safer in June, by which point many more people will have been exposed. If we're going to hold a vote in Ohio at some point, why should we prefer early June? Shall we assume the party of science denial and voter suppression is getting good advice and playing it straight on this issue?

ETA: Bit weird to pretend the primaries aren't an important part of the election in a two-party system but whatevs.
Click to expand...
Bit weird to keep disregarding the way viruses spread and the fact that many of us are following and passing along the advice of scientists rather than the scumbag-in-chief but whatevs.
 
d4m10n said:
Which scientists said we'll be good to go by June (e.g. in Ohio)?
Click to expand...
None, but they picked a date. Between now and then, state officials are responsible for figuring out how to safely hold their primary election. What's your problem with it...I mean, apart from it ruining democracy?
 
Biden just won Florida bigtime.
Wierd a few days ago it would have been the biggest news story, now it's off to the side.
 
Babbylonian said:
None, but they picked a date. Between now and then, state officials are responsible for figuring out how to safely hold their primary election. What's your problem with it...I mean, apart from it ruining democracy?
Click to expand...

For a start, the aforementioned state officials are from the party that consistently stands up for voter suppression and against science-based decision making. On those premises alone, I expect them to **** this up wildly. They have literally no reason to get it right.
 
d4m10n said:
For a start, the aforementioned state officials are from the party that consistently stands up for voter suppression and against science-based decision making. On those premises alone, I expect them to **** this up wildly. They have literally no reason to get it right.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: What reason do they have to get it wrong? It's not like they can stop the Democratic Party from having a presidential nominee, so what's the point of your nonsense? Guess what: Apart from Trump, most politicians find it a liability to be considered incompetent, and any state government that can't figure out an election alternative in 3 months is absolutely incompetent. The simplest way to handle the situation is to have everyone vote absentee. It would cost money to print more ballots and get the word out, but it would be pretty easy. Who knows? They might even see that switching to vote by mail is a good idea...and it is.

The reality is that I don't think you have an argument apart from "Republicans bad." While I agree with the sentiment, it's not a substitute for reason.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
How confident are you that the postponed states will implement a postal ballot? You sound highly confident.
Click to expand...

If they don't then that is the problem, not the fact that they postponed the vote.

And it seems to me that if your concern really is preserving "the American way of life" and it's so precarious that this crisis is going to be used by the unscrupulous to irreparably bring it crashing down around your ears then I've got bad news for you - you're already too late. Making the crisis worse and killing people in the process in order to try to cling on to the pretence that "the American way of life" still exists is pointless, selfish, and cruel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom