Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Iowa prediction thread

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I fail to comprehend the logic of what you're saying here. The plutocrats, whether as candidates, or buying, funding, and bribing them, will always have an inordinate and disproportionate amount of power and influence over the voters themselves until the campaign laws and other things (like the Citizens' United ruling) are clamped down on firmly by an Administration and Congress that value integrity, their constituents, and their Constitutionals mandate of power over their personal pocketbooks.

Citizens United is still relatively recent, compared to the history of Iowa and New Hampshire’s role.

Steyer, Bloomberg, and Delaney are collective proof of how hard it is to buy the nomination under our current system, no matter how unlimited your resources are.

If we had a nationwide primary all on the same day, only the personally wealthiest candidates could compete on that scale.

By running the primaries one (or a few) states at a time, it becomes more affordable/realistic to start with few resources but build momentum and donations to run a viable campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

To my understanding, they actually choose to be last.

why, I don’t know.  But states are largely allowed to choose when they want to have their primary, after IA and NH (and potentially SC and NV, I’m not sure if those two are hard coded or not.)

Perhaps they want final say in case it comes down to a final 2 or 3 and they can play king (or queen) maker.

If I recall correctly, while it was clear a Trump would get the “most” votes in the 2016 Republican primary, it looked like it could come down to the wire on whether he would get “enough” votes.

 

 

Who makes this choice? A consensus of the Primary voters for that Party in that State in it's entirety? I'm highly dubious of THAT! I'd imagine it's more elitist Party bureaucrats and strategists, with no actual meaningful or binding input from the State primary voters - though I'd LOVE to be proven wrong - I'm not holding my breath...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Who makes this choice? A consensus of the Primary voters for that Party in that State in it's entirety? I'm highly dubious of THAT! I'd imagine it's more elitist Party bureaucrats and strategists, with no actual meaningful or binding input from the State primary voters - though I'd LOVE to be proven wrong - I'm not holding my breath...

Are you actually angry about this?

That's got to be exhausting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Who makes this choice? A consensus of the Primary voters for that Party in that State in it's entirety?

I think this is pretty complex. An actual primary is run by the state, I believe, and I believe therefore has to be coordinated with the state legislature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I think this is pretty complex. An actual primary is run by the state, I believe, and I believe therefore has to be coordinated with the state legislature.

But the integral conflation of one (or two, even several) political parties above all others into the very framework of the state apparatus on that level is antagonistic and contrary to the ideal and preservation of a Constitutional representative government with guarantees of political rights and voting mandate for it's citizens. It is typically a practice of one-party states (like Communist or Fascist states), dominant party states (like emerging democracies in Africa and Asia), and party-of-power states (like in many former Post-Soviet states). This party-state fusion not only puts the American political and electoral systems closer, by nature, to the sort of regimes I listed above than to other First World Nations (except maybe Hungary since Fidesz singe-handedly rewrote the national Constitution in 2010), but prevents not only true, genuine electoral choice at the ballot box, and true, genuine ability by the voters to hold their government accountable, responsible, beholden, and transparent to them, but to truly have power to actually topple the Duopoly as a whole from government in one election. If a Third Party candidate actually won the Presidency, and their party won a respectable number of seats in Congress in the same election, would the outgoing Duopoly Administration and Congress respect the results, or make one of their "bipartisan initiatives" (which always seem to support the most horrible and monstrous of things, for some reason) to declare the election invalid "for some reason," and a contrived and trumped "state of emergency to deal with an unprecedented affair?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Are you actually angry about this?

That's got to be exhausting.

I have a powerful sense of justice. It's not politicized justice, or "social justice," or justice based strictly on a lot of modern law codes - it's a pretty old-fashioned view of justice. And it gets violated EVERY DAY, especially when I watch political news. But I just CAN'T detach myself from it - either from my view of justice, or political news...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Patine said:

is antagonistic and contrary to the ideal and preservation of a Constitutional representative government with guarantees of political rights and voting mandate for it's citizens

Maybe, but it's a different issue from whether it makes sense for members of a party to support one-after-another primaries.

My guess is staggered primaries makes sense, for the boring reasons given above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Maybe, but it's a different issue from whether it makes sense for members of a party to support one-after-another primaries.

My guess is staggered primaries makes sense, for the boring reasons given above.

Although, EVERY single political party on the ballot in a given state should receive state-funded and organized primaries, or none of them should. The fact that only two ever do show how compromised and corrupted the system, and how thoroughly intertwined in a highly politically and Constitutional unhealthy and compromising the two main parties are with the state and federal governments - not so differently than United Russia is in Russia or the ZANU-PF is in Zimbabwe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I have a powerful sense of justice. It's not politicized justice, or "social justice," or justice based strictly on a lot of modern law codes - it's a pretty old-fashioned view of justice. And it gets violated EVERY DAY, especially when I watch political news. But I just CAN'T detach myself from it - either from my view of justice, or political news...

Great, but have you examined why you can't separate justice-related problems that actually matter, versus justice-related issues that don't?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Although, EVERY single political party on the ballot in a given state should receive state-funded and organized primaries, or none of them should. The fact that only two ever do show how compromised and corrupted the system, and how thoroughly intertwined in a highly politically and Constitutional unhealthy and compromising the two main parties are with the state and federal governments - not so differently than United Russia is in Russia or the ZANU-PF is in Zimbabwe.

Wait...I think you might be entirely misinformed about how this works.  

No Republican or Democrat has accepted public funding for the general election since 2008, because they didn't want to accept the limitations that come with the money.

Any party (yes, ANY party, not just the top two) can receive funding by getting at least 5% of the popular vote in a general election.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Great, but have you examined why you can't separate justice-related problems that actually matter, versus justice-related issues that don't?  

How do YOU judge relevancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Any party (yes, ANY party, not just the top two) can receive funding by getting at least 5% of the popular vote in a general election.

 

Well, that's all well and good, except the deck is stacked (and rigged, in a corrupt and power-abusive way) to make it near impossible and extremely rare for Third Party and Independent candidates to get 5% in a general election. It's not because such candidates INHERENTLY are bad candidates or have ideas compared to main party (though quite a few do - then again, so do quite a few candidates of the main, including a notable number who actually end up elected), but because they're going uphill against a mountain of a system unfairly and institutionally rigged against them. A Third Party candidate is as handicapped, de facto, to win the Presidency in the United States, as a non-United Russia candidate is in Russia or a non-ZANU-PF candidate is in Zimbabwe. Even getting 5% is like "beating the House in Vegas."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I became interested enough in this topic to do a little research.

It turns out that if a political party wants a state to pay for their nomination process/election, then they have to follow the state's rules -- including when the election/nomination takes place.  And that's called a primary.

If the state's party wants to choose a different date or otherwise play by their own rules, then they have to pay for it themselves -- and that's called a caucus.  

Today I Learned!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

I became interested enough in this topic to do a little research.

It turns out that if a political party wants a state to pay for their nomination process/election, then they have to follow the state's rules -- including when the election/nomination takes place.  And that's called a primary.

If the state's party wants to choose a different date or otherwise play by their own rules, then they have to pay for it themselves -- and that's called a caucus.  

Today I Learned!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/

Interesting. I just thought - from a fairly logical assumption, given limited knowledge - that the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, Reform, Socialist Equality, Peace and Justice, etc. Parties held and funded their own Primaries, with minimal media coverage and often truncated and elapsed procedures, because they weren't given much choice. I was actually unaware of these rules. Thank-you for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Patine said:

How do YOU judge relevancy?

As with everything else, ranging from workplace conflicts to how I parent my child to how I try to conduct myself here -- I choose my battles.

I start with "What can I realistically achieve", and then from that list, decide what would get me the biggest bang for the buck.

For example, I could scream myself hoarse everytime my daughter does something I didn't want her to do.  But all that would achieve is to make her either afraid of me or get used to it and tune my screaming out.  So, instead, I only yell if I actually NEED to scare her -- for example, if she's about to cross a busy road without looking.  By keeping my yelling limited to these scenarios, it startles her enough to stop her in her tracks when I do it.

Likewise, I could rant and rave about literally every single topic I can think of on an internet forum -- but all that would achieve is to make people roll their eyes and eventually ignore me.  Instead, I try to only engage when I've done the research and have facts and figures to back me up, or can otherwise speak from personal experience in a way that perhaps others can not.  It won't persuade every reader, of course, but if I can build up a pattern of demonstrating that I only weigh in when I actually know what I'm talking about, I'll be more persuasive in the long run.  (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that I've achieved this 100% of the time -- but, rather, that it is something that I am trying to achieve).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

I became interested enough in this topic to do a little research.

It turns out that if a political party wants a state to pay for their nomination process/election, then they have to follow the state's rules -- including when the election/nomination takes place.  And that's called a primary.

If the state's party wants to choose a different date or otherwise play by their own rules, then they have to pay for it themselves -- and that's called a caucus.  

Today I Learned!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/

That's actually really interesting. Thanks for looking it up, literally had no idea what the difference between the two were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Buttigieg

2. Sanders

3. Biden

4. Warren

5. Klobuchar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Buttigieg

2. Warren

3. Sanders

4. Biden

5. Klobuchar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Sanders
  2. Buttigieg
  3. Warren
  4. Biden
  5. Klobuchar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@admin_270 should predict too

Forgot! I was disappointed to find I didn't make a prediction for the House impeachment vote.

1. Sanders

2. Buttigieg

3. Biden

4. Warren

5. Klobuchar

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...