Democratic caucuses and primaries

[Stacyhs]

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

I think he jumped into national politics too soon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him run for Congress in the future.

 

[angrysoba]

I think he jumped into national politics too soon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him run for Congress in the future.

I don't think there was really any serious chance he would become president this time around, so I think his campaign should be seen rather as a very successful attempt to raise his profile on the national stage.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't think there was really any serious chance he would become president this time around, so I think his campaign should be seen rather as a very successful attempt to raise his profile on the national stage.

True. I like him a lot. He'd make a good Congressman.

 

[Brainster]

Has there never been any movements to change the USA political parties to become pretty much like actual political parties in the rest of the world?

What happens nearly everywhere else that has workingish democracies is that a political party is lead by the person that would become the leader of the country. This means that apart from when leadership changes there aren't seemingly years of campaigning against your colleagues.

Unlike d4m10n, I don't think it would require constitutional change. The parties can nominate whomever they want, however, they want. Of course, it can't be like the parliamentary system (based on the number of members of Congress), it would have to be that each party would designate its leader as their presidential candidate.

As far as I can see, the chief benefit is that the candidates have it out at the party level years before the general election, so wounds may have more time to scab over if not quite heal. Negatives? It sets in place a candidate who then will not actually run for the presidency for several years. Maybe the needs of the country (and the party) change in the meantime. And it asks the party faithful to hold another election when they are no doubt exhausted and dispirited from losing the general election.

 

[ahhell]

Our ballots for the Washington primary, first time we've ever had even a semi-meaningful one, are sitting on the island. Not going to mark them until after Super-Tuesday and we see who drops out.

Oh, and when I'm King of the World, Super Tuesday will be required to coincide with Fat Tuesday, because why not?

This is where I am in Colorado. I Vote tomorrow and still haven't made up my mind. Who has the best chance of beating Sanders and Trump?

Not with significant traction, no. Changing our system to a more proportional parliamentary system would require major constitutional rewrites. Remember this is the nation that cannot even make easy and obvious changes like abolishing the electoral college in favor of a nationwide popular vote.

I find this amusing, the US president is closer to being popularly elected than any PM in a parliamentary system. That's a bug, not a feature.

That being said, part of the issue with the US parties is that they've been weakened by a series of democratic reforms that make the pretty useless. The can't even pick their own leaders these days.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This is where I am in Colorado. I Vote tomorrow and still haven't made up my mind. Who has the best chance of beating Sanders and Trump?



I find this amusing, the US president is closer to being popularly elected than any PM in a parliamentary system. That's a bug, not a feature.



That being said, part of the issue with the US parties is that they've been weakened by a series of democratic reforms that make the pretty useless. The can't even pick their own leaders these days.

They can pick their own leaders just fine.

They don't get to pick who can or cannot appear on a ballot to run for elected office and I find it confusing that so many people seem to think letting them do that would be a good thing.

No, the problem is even well-informed people don't understand the political organs and how they interoperate.

 

[Distracted1]

This is where I am in Colorado. I Vote tomorrow and still haven't made up my mind. Who has the best chance of beating Sanders and Trump?

I find this amusing, the US president is closer to being popularly elected than any PM in a parliamentary system. That's a bug, not a feature.

That being said, part of the issue with the US parties is that they've been weakened by a series of democratic reforms that make the pretty useless. The can't even pick their own leaders these days.

Vote Warren.
She has the ideals of a Sanders, with the practicality of a Buttigieg.

 

[ahhell]

Vote Warren.
She has the ideals of a Sanders, with the practicality of a Buttigieg.

I'm not especially enamored of the ideals of Sanders. This argument doesn't much favor the notion that she can beat Sanders either.

 

[d4m10n]

Unlike d4m10n, I don't think it would require constitutional change. The parties can nominate whomever they want, however, they want. Of course, it can't be like the parliamentary system (based on the number of members of Congress), it would have to be that each party would designate its leader as their presidential candidate.

Boris Johnson became UK PM with fewer than 100,000 votes (total) well before the 2019 general election. There is nothing remotely analogous to this in the U.S. system, nor would your proposal create it.

...the US president is closer to being popularly elected than any PM in a parliamentary system. That's a bug, not a feature.

Why shouldn't the only nationwide elective office be filled by popular election, in your view?

Vote Warren. She has the ideals of a Sanders, with the practicality of a Buttigieg.

This seems about right to me.

When faced with the problem of big banks, Warren's solution is regulation, technocratic oversight and careful monitoring. Bernie's solution is just to break them all up.

 

[Distracted1]

I'm not especially enamored of the ideals of Sanders. This argument doesn't much favor the notion that she can beat Sanders either.

She can get the support of the moderates that are dropping out, because Sanders presence is making her seem more moderate. She kills Bloomberg off, Klobuchar drops out, and it becomes more and more apparent that Bidens' mind is failing.

That leaves her the remaining "moderate" who ,coincidentally, gives the Sanders people the least amount to feel disaffected about.

Finishing off Sanders last makes her more appealing to the general public as the General election nears.

She is our best option right now, but we will piss it away without an early win or two for her.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's 327 million Americans.

There's 212 million Americans of actual voting age.

In the 2016 million only 129 million Americans actually voted (~63 million for Trump, ~66 million for Clinton)

There's only 78 million people registered with one of the two major political parties. (~33 million Republicans, ~45 million Democrats)

That's 78 million out of 129 million, 212 million, or 327 million depending on which metric you think bouncing it off of gives us the most useful data.

And that 78 million is split between two warring factions.

So either political party taking it upon themselves to speak "for" America just isn't supported by the numbers.

Whoever wins or loses in 2020 most of their votes are going to come from people who aren't playing or obsessing over (or indeed even maybe even paying attention to) politics right now.

At absolute best the larger of the two political parties, the Democrats, represents ~45 million out of ~129 million politically active Americans. That's about 34%. That's not enough to declare yourself the zeitgeist of the age.

So a faction within that faction raising their voice at us seems almost quaint.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

She can get the support of the moderates that are dropping out, because Sanders presence is making her seem more moderate. She kills Bloomberg off, Klobuchar drops out, and it becomes more and more apparent that Bidens' mind is failing.

That leaves her the remaining "moderate" who ,coincidentally, gives the Sanders people the least amount to feel disaffected about.

Finishing off Sanders last makes her more appealing to the general public as the General election nears.

She is our best option right now, but we will piss it away without an early win or two for her.

If this is going to happen, it had better happen soon. Seems more likely that Warren's only real path to the nomination is through some back room deal at a brokered convention.

I doubt she wins a single state and probably doesn't even come in with that many delegates.

 

[Distracted1]

If this is going to happen, it had better happen soon. Seems more likely that Warren's only real path to the nomination is through some back room deal at a brokered convention.

I doubt she wins a single state and probably doesn't even come in with that many delegates.

I agree, she needs a good showing in one of these early runs.
Ironically, by the time this thing gets to the States that will likely be picking the winner of the General, it will be all but over.
Pennsylvania doesn't get a voice until April 28th.

If 80% of the initial choices have been removed from the table before we even get asked what our preference is, it is easy to see how we might not mind a "brokered convention" quite as much.

 

[Cabbage]

I agree, she needs a good showing in one of these early runs.
Ironically, by the time this thing gets to the States that will likely be picking the winner of the General, it will be all but over.
Pennsylvania doesn't get a voice until April 28th.

If 80% of the initial choices have been removed from the table before we even get asked what our preference is, it is easy to see how we might not mind a "brokered convention" quite as much.

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

She can get the support of the moderates that are dropping out, because Sanders presence is making her seem more moderate. She kills Bloomberg off, Klobuchar drops out, and it becomes more and more apparent that Bidens' mind is failing.

That leaves her the remaining "moderate" who ,coincidentally, gives the Sanders people the least amount to feel disaffected about.

Finishing off Sanders last makes her more appealing to the general public as the General election nears.

She is our best option right now, but we will piss it away without an early win or two for her.

Polling does not support this theory.

Sanders is polling either as the preferred 2nd choice, or in a close second for all candidates. There is nothing to indicate that a narrowing field will hurt Bernie. In fact, it would probably allow him to clinch an outright delegate win.

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

 

[Tolls]

They can pick their own leaders just fine.

They don't get to pick who can or cannot appear on a ballot to run for elected office and I find it confusing that so many people seem to think letting them do that would be a good thing.

No, the problem is even well-informed people don't understand the political organs and how they interoperate.

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).

 

[d4m10n]

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.

I know you're not asking me, but shouldn't the question be "Who scares the rust belt the most after an oppo blitz from the right?"

From what I've seen so far, the Democratic candidates have been avoiding running the kind of attacks we're bound to see from the Trump-aligned PACs in the fall.

 

[Cabbage]

I know you're not asking me, but shouldn't the question be "Who scares the rust belt the most after an oppo blitz from the right?"

From what I've seen so far, the Democratic candidates have been avoiding running the kind of attacks we're bound to see from the Trump-aligned PACs in the fall.

Yeah, there's always a corner you can hide behind if you refuse to allow your hypothesis to be falsified.

 

[d4m10n]

Yeah, there's always a corner you can hide behind if you refuse to allow your hypothesis to be falsified.

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.

 

[theprestige]

Unlike d4m10n, I don't think it would require constitutional change. The parties can nominate whomever they want, however, they want. Of course, it can't be like the parliamentary system (based on the number of members of Congress), it would have to be that each party would designate its leader as their presidential candidate.

I swing the other way on this. I think the "leader of the party is leader of the country" principle is a side effect of the parliamentary system, where the Legislative and Executive duties are combined in a single governing body. This is distinctly not the case in the American system of government.

Who is the leader of the Republican Party? GOP Party Chair Ronna McDaniel? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? Probably not House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. (But would House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer perhaps be the leader of the DNC? Or would that be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?)

It's easy to say that the President is the leader of their party, but I think this is a misapplication of parliamentary patterns to a non-parliamentary system. The UKian system pretty much demands that the party leader in the legislature become the leader of the nation as a whole. The American system allows for party outsiders to lead the nation without leading the party.

As far as leading the Republican party in government, I'd say Senator McConnell is probably the closest thing to what the UKians think of as a "party leader". As far as leading the Republican party in society, that job is done by GOP Chair McDaniel.

So, in order to get the kind of alignment between government leadership and party leadership that parliamentarians are used to, a new constitution, re-establishing the US government as a parliamentary system, would be necessary.