The Repub Debate

[knapplc]

 

Well, I look at it as a Party should get to define itself however it wants to. They can conduct polls, or whatever, but ultimately the candidates they put out should roughly be party choice. If they choose terrible candidates that's a reflection on them, and voters in a democracy can respond by abandoning the party at the polls. The extended primary campaigning is a weird deal. I think 'political season' seems to dominate too much of the process. Candidates are always out campaigning, fundraising, etc.

I'm not in favor of Parties being private entities making up their own rules to slant things in favor of Establishment power structures rather than reflecting the People's choice all along the way. That's a roundabout way of saying I don't like rigged systems. Sure, voters could abandon the 2 Parties, except it's never happened mainly because the 2 Parties have made it near impossible for other Party infiltration into the process.

 

I agree, the thing has been dragging on for far too long and I feel all this day to day polling impacts the process by influencing weaker minded, lesser informed voters to pick the guy/gal thats "winning"(in the polls. The UK chooses their PM in about 6 months, why not do the same timeline here? Oh wait, the media makes beaucoup $ off this whole thing, so me thinks that's a big part of drawing it out forever.

 

Definitely agree with the bold. America isn't the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, it's the people. More now than ever before, the people are not represented by these parties. They're both so busy fighting for their own power that they've forgotten they need a mandate from the people they allegedly represent.

[BigRedBuster]

The primaries are a load of crap. Caucuses are even bigger load of crap. People talk about voter ID disenfranchising voters. Caucuses take that to another level. I am 48 years old, and not once have I had an opportunity to cast a meaningful vote in the primaries.

In Iowa, I never was able to take all evening to go debate with a bunch of people to decide who we were going to support. Nebraska's primaries are so meaningless they might as well not exist. And, there is no conceivable logic that if I live on the eastern shore of the Missouri river in Iowa, my vote is very important. But, if I live on the western shore in Nebraska, it doesn't.

 

What I would love to see happen is:

 

Five state regional primaries that are not winner take all. Those five states are geographically attached. You have 10 Primaries, one on each Tuesday starting in mid April and ending in late June.

 

Also, a lottery system set up to draw the order of those Primaries.

 

Still....the act Trump is putting on that the system is stacked against him is a load of BS.

[TGHusker]

Trump complains about the process yet if he wants it to be 'fair' he needs to give back 100s of his delegates to other candidates. He has won 37% of the vote yet he has 45% of the delegates. SC for example he won approx. 33% of the vote but got 100% of the delegates. In Florida, I believe he received 45% of the vote but got 100% of the delegates - both states were winner take all. This is true in other states as well. In just a few of the states he would have gained a few more delegates but in the majority of states his vote % was much less than the % of delegates awarded. Yet, because he failed (lost - loser) to organize in Colorado he cries fowl. Trumpsters need to look at the facts - Trump is a spoiled cry baby - funning how the system works so well in the states he has won but so bad in the states he has lost or when he can't organize and manage his campaign well enough to go after delegates that are still uncommitted or who may be free to vote differently on the 2nd ballot. You can't have it both ways. Stop following him like blind sheep. Objectively go back and look at each states' % of vote he's gotten and then the % of delegates he's gotten and you will see that the SYSTEM HAS WORKED IN HIS FAVOR!

[TGHusker]

 

 

Well, I look at it as a Party should get to define itself however it wants to. They can conduct polls, or whatever, but ultimately the candidates they put out should roughly be party choice. If they choose terrible candidates that's a reflection on them, and voters in a democracy can respond by abandoning the party at the polls. The extended primary campaigning is a weird deal. I think 'political season' seems to dominate too much of the process. Candidates are always out campaigning, fundraising, etc.

I'm not in favor of Parties being private entities making up their own rules to slant things in favor of Establishment power structures rather than reflecting the People's choice all along the way. That's a roundabout way of saying I don't like rigged systems. Sure, voters could abandon the 2 Parties, except it's never happened mainly because the 2 Parties have made it near impossible for other Party infiltration into the process.

 

I agree, the thing has been dragging on for far too long and I feel all this day to day polling impacts the process by influencing weaker minded, lesser informed voters to pick the guy/gal thats "winning"(in the polls. The UK chooses their PM in about 6 months, why not do the same timeline here? Oh wait, the media makes beaucoup $ off this whole thing, so me thinks that's a big part of drawing it out forever.

 

Definitely agree with the bold. America isn't the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, it's the people. More now than ever before, the people are not represented by these parties. They're both so busy fighting for their own power that they've forgotten they need a mandate from the people they allegedly represent.

 

Time for a third party - or maybe let the repub party fade away. Real action and change normally comes from the extremes - left or right. Maybe a left and right parties wt a new process of working through the differences to get things done. I was going to say we need a 'moderate' party (center right to center left) but rarely do new ideas come out of moderation. I see the Dem party getting more liberal and the pull on the repub party is more conservative. For a number of years each party has been going through this change - This has been a difficult process. Maybe this 2016 election will bring change in the process to make the primary system more democratic. This occurred after Chicago 1968.

[TGHusker]

The primaries are a load of crap. Caucuses are even bigger load of crap. People talk about voter ID disenfranchising voters. Caucuses take that to another level. I am 48 years old, and not once have I had an opportunity to cast a meaningful vote in the primaries.

 

In Iowa, I never was able to take all evening to go debate with a bunch of people to decide who we were going to support. Nebraska's primaries are so meaningless they might as well not exist. And, there is no conceivable logic that if I live on the eastern shore of the Missouri river in Iowa, my vote is very important. But, if I live on the western shore in Nebraska, it doesn't.

 

What I would love to see happen is:

 

Five state regional primaries that are not winner take all. Those five states are geographically attached. You have 10 Primaries, one on each Tuesday starting in mid April and ending in late June.

 

Also, a lottery system set up to draw the order of those Primaries.

 

Still....the act Trump is putting on that the system is stacked against him is a load of BS.

I like that idea of regional primaries. - Was that a BRB Original - if so BRB for president! But that makes sense - let the candidates concentrate on the issues in those regions. Start the process later so that everyone has a chance to get their name out in the public for some time ahead of time. Maybe the # of candidates could be limited by the polls in that region alone. If for example Trump is only strong in the NE but polls poorly else where, than he doesn't get on the ballot in those area? If we end up wt 17 guys on the ballot in every region we end up at the convention wt a diluted results and then the delegates will end up choosing the nominee on the 2+ ballot.

[Red Dead Redemption]

The primaries are a load of crap. Caucuses are even bigger load of crap.

[BigRedBuster]

 

The primaries are a load of crap. Caucuses are even bigger load of crap. People talk about voter ID disenfranchising voters. Caucuses take that to another level. I am 48 years old, and not once have I had an opportunity to cast a meaningful vote in the primaries.

 

In Iowa, I never was able to take all evening to go debate with a bunch of people to decide who we were going to support. Nebraska's primaries are so meaningless they might as well not exist. And, there is no conceivable logic that if I live on the eastern shore of the Missouri river in Iowa, my vote is very important. But, if I live on the western shore in Nebraska, it doesn't.

 

What I would love to see happen is:

 

Five state regional primaries that are not winner take all. Those five states are geographically attached. You have 10 Primaries, one on each Tuesday starting in mid April and ending in late June.

 

Also, a lottery system set up to draw the order of those Primaries.

 

Still....the act Trump is putting on that the system is stacked against him is a load of BS.

I like that idea of regional primaries. - Was that a BRB Original - if so BRB for president! But that makes sense - let the candidates concentrate on the issues in those regions. Start the process later so that everyone has a chance to get their name out in the public for some time ahead of time. Maybe the # of candidates could be limited by the polls in that region alone. If for example Trump is only strong in the NE but polls poorly else where, than he doesn't get on the ballot in those area? If we end up wt 17 guys on the ballot in every region we end up at the convention wt a diluted results and then the delegates will end up choosing the nominee on the 2+ ballot.

 

I'm sure I'm not the first to ever think about it. But, growing up in Nebraska then living in Iowa, it always made me wonder why the hell aren't both primaries at the same time and equally meaningful. I also always wondered why the heck should Iowa and New Hampshire always have such high importance as the first primaries/caucuses?

 

I guess I have always been frustrated with the process.

[cornographic]

 

 

Well, I look at it as a Party should get to define itself however it wants to. They can conduct polls, or whatever, but ultimately the candidates they put out should roughly be party choice. If they choose terrible candidates that's a reflection on them, and voters in a democracy can respond by abandoning the party at the polls. The extended primary campaigning is a weird deal. I think 'political season' seems to dominate too much of the process. Candidates are always out campaigning, fundraising, etc.

I'm not in favor of Parties being private entities making up their own rules to slant things in favor of Establishment power structures rather than reflecting the People's choice all along the way. That's a roundabout way of saying I don't like rigged systems. Sure, voters could abandon the 2 Parties, except it's never happened mainly because the 2 Parties have made it near impossible for other Party infiltration into the process.

 

I agree, the thing has been dragging on for far too long and I feel all this day to day polling impacts the process by influencing weaker minded, lesser informed voters to pick the guy/gal thats "winning"(in the polls. The UK chooses their PM in about 6 months, why not do the same timeline here? Oh wait, the media makes beaucoup $ off this whole thing, so me thinks that's a big part of drawing it out forever.

 

Cause we beat their asses down! 'Merica!

 

Yeah, thats why the US Prez bows to the Queen and not the other way around.

[cornographic]

 

 

Well, I look at it as a Party should get to define itself however it wants to. They can conduct polls, or whatever, but ultimately the candidates they put out should roughly be party choice. If they choose terrible candidates that's a reflection on them, and voters in a democracy can respond by abandoning the party at the polls. The extended primary campaigning is a weird deal. I think 'political season' seems to dominate too much of the process. Candidates are always out campaigning, fundraising, etc.

I'm not in favor of Parties being private entities making up their own rules to slant things in favor of Establishment power structures rather than reflecting the People's choice all along the way. That's a roundabout way of saying I don't like rigged systems. Sure, voters could abandon the 2 Parties, except it's never happened mainly because the 2 Parties have made it near impossible for other Party infiltration into the process.

 

I agree, the thing has been dragging on for far too long and I feel all this day to day polling impacts the process by influencing weaker minded, lesser informed voters to pick the guy/gal thats "winning"(in the polls. The UK chooses their PM in about 6 months, why not do the same timeline here? Oh wait, the media makes beaucoup $ off this whole thing, so me thinks that's a big part of drawing it out forever.

 

Definitely agree with the bold. America isn't the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, it's the people. More now than ever before, the people are not represented by these parties. They're both so busy fighting for their own power that they've forgotten they need a mandate from the people they allegedly represent.

 

Copy

 

 

 

 

Well, I look at it as a Party should get to define itself however it wants to. They can conduct polls, or whatever, but ultimately the candidates they put out should roughly be party choice. If they choose terrible candidates that's a reflection on them, and voters in a democracy can respond by abandoning the party at the polls. The extended primary campaigning is a weird deal. I think 'political season' seems to dominate too much of the process. Candidates are always out campaigning, fundraising, etc.

I'm not in favor of Parties being private entities making up their own rules to slant things in favor of Establishment power structures rather than reflecting the People's choice all along the way. That's a roundabout way of saying I don't like rigged systems. Sure, voters could abandon the 2 Parties, except it's never happened mainly because the 2 Parties have made it near impossible for other Party infiltration into the process.

 

I agree, the thing has been dragging on for far too long and I feel all this day to day polling impacts the process by influencing weaker minded, lesser informed voters to pick the guy/gal thats "winning"(in the polls. The UK chooses their PM in about 6 months, why not do the same timeline here? Oh wait, the media makes beaucoup $ off this whole thing, so me thinks that's a big part of drawing it out forever.

 

Definitely agree with the bold. America isn't the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, it's the people. More now than ever before, the people are not represented by these parties. They're both so busy fighting for their own power that they've forgotten they need a mandate from the people they allegedly represent.

 

Time for a third party - or maybe let the repub party fade away. Real action and change normally comes from the extremes - left or right. Maybe a left and right parties wt a new process of working through the differences to get things done. I was going to say we need a 'moderate' party (center right to center left) but rarely do new ideas come out of moderation. I see the Dem party getting more liberal and the pull on the repub party is more conservative. For a number of years each party has been going through this change - This has been a difficult process. Maybe this 2016 election will bring change in the process to make the primary system more democratic. This occurred after Chicago 1968.

 

Agree, but the 2 Partys now have all the money and power to keep any other upstart party from being able to participate in any realistic sense, thats why Bernie signed up as a Dem so he could have a realistic shot.

[cm husker]

Id prefer congress select a president by super majority (say 75% of congress). And if they fail to seat one before a deadline, then all members are ineligible for reelection. That would accomplish at least three important things:

 

1. The perception is that there's a "middle majority" of congress who are intelligent, well-intentioned and reasonable but that extremes on both ends tear things apart. I don't think you can reach the extremes, but a super majority of congress should be able to identify someone who is intelligent, experienced and possesses the demeanor to exercises article 2 authority.

 

2. One of the problems with the system today is that the jockeying for the 5-10 swing spots (using senate as example) means both sides become obstructionist when out of power in hopes of getting the other side thrown out. The easiest way to do that is vilify the opposing president, so even otherwise reasonable people attack each and every policy of a president no matter how appropriate it is. My system would require at least half of the minority party to have at least at some time supported the sitting president. That makes it hard for them to later attack that person's integrity, intelligence or judgment without losing a lot of credibility themselves.

 

3. It would draw the American people's interest to their local elections, which are far more important than what has become the super bowl of elections. That benefits society in many obvious ways.

 

I'd like to see this coupled with two other pieces of reform: (a) a reduction/restriction on gerrymandering because it's been the divvying up and establishment of "super safe" districts that have lead to much of the polarization, and (b) pay raises for congress so that we attract better talent to the positions. Right now we mainly have familied money and incompetents running congress and it's a major problem.

[zoogs]

Parties *are* the people, though.

Abolish every party today, somehow, and people will coalesce into voting factions once again. Parties build coalitions of interests and try to represent them. I'm not a big fan of the inflexibility of the binary system, especially given what we're seeing today -- where there exists one choice, because the other one has sequestered themselves into this really weird corner of insanity. It's not healthy. As much as any of you I'm looking forward to something that can break this up a little, so that parties are capable of cooperation and opposition on an ad-hoc basis, instead of down the line.

 

Reasonable people can disagree about minimum wage and tax policy, without having to parrot party lines on science denial and anti-anti-discrimination laws. It feels to me like the binary system has been distilled into one that rewards maximal differentiation, and thus, perpetual loggerheads on simple things for which there is broad popular support.

[cornographic]

Parties *are* the people, though.

 

Abolish every party today, somehow, and people will coalesce into voting factions once again. Parties build coalitions of interests and try to represent them. I'm not a big fan of the inflexibility of the binary system, especially given what we're seeing today -- where there exists one choice, because the other one has sequestered themselves into this really weird corner of insanity. It's not healthy. As much as any of you I'm looking forward to something that can break this up a little, so that parties are capable of cooperation and opposition on an ad-hoc basis, instead of down the line.

 

Reasonable people can disagree about minimum wage and tax policy, without having to parrot party lines on science denial and anti-anti-discrimination laws. It feels to me like the binary system has been distilled into one that rewards maximal differentiation, and thus, perpetual loggerheads on simple things for which there is broad popular support.

Well, you need Parties of for and by the People, like Bernie's movement, not Parties of for and by the bought and paid for Power Elite.

[zoogs]

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir here as far as moneyed interests and Citizens United go. It's hard to avoid being influenced by that, and there is zero guarantee that moneyed interests are the most important ones. Catering only to the people has its downsides, too, however.

 

What we really want are candidates that appeal to us personally -- being all eminently reasonable people ourselves, of course, right? .

 

But in pure grassroots movements, politicians are subject to influences as well, and these are not "all good", either. They will tend to play to the lowest denominator, and the most powerful forces are fear and anger. The Tea Party taps into that, and so does Trump. We have candidates call each other losers and liars and whores and racists, because that plays. Substantive talk happens, too, but the dog-and-pony show of debates before live audiences are front and center, where we can watch PR specialists jockey for the best zingers and crowdpleasers. That's the power of the people at play, and so I think a balancing element is important. Bernie is a hundred times more impressive than his movement, and he can't help but be shaped by the pressures of consolidating them either.

[cornographic]

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir here as far as moneyed interests and Citizens United go. It's hard to avoid being influenced by that, and there is zero guarantee that moneyed interests are the most important ones. Catering only to the people has its downsides, too, however.

 

What we really want are candidates that appeal to us personally -- being all eminently reasonable people ourselves, of course, right? .

 

But in pure grassroots movements, politicians are subject to influences as well, and these are not "all good", either. They will tend to play to the lowest denominator, and the most powerful forces are fear and anger. The Tea Party taps into that, and so does Trump. We have candidates call each other losers and liars and whores and racists, because that plays. Substantive talk happens, too, but the dog-and-pony show of debates before live audiences are front and center, where we can watch PR specialists jockey for the best zingers and crowdpleasers. That's the power of the people at play, and so I think a balancing element is important.

Ok, well, in capitalism, you basically have the business class and the working class, the owners and the workers and their economic interests are genrally at odds because the owners generally want to keep most the spoils for themselves and pay the workers the least amount possible. The Repubs generally are represent the owners/business class and the Dems--in theory--rep the workers. So, it's a constant power struggle.

 

Drumpf has played to the lowest common denominator rhetoric, though their fundamental complaint is valid, they are workers getting screwed. Bernie's message and crowd is the high minded opposite of that and he actually does represent the workers. But it's no mystery that a large sector of the US population are about the least politically informed on the planet and thats why they keep voting against their own best interests. Drumpf's angry blue collar crowd should be voting for Bernie, as his policies are the natural ally of the working class.

 

Anyway, especially with the onset off Cit United, the US is essentially a consolidated oligarchy, as Bernie says, so any change, even the most simple, are extremely difficult. The country and it's political system is owned.

[zoogs]

I disagree about the Bernie campaign's high mindedness, though not with all of its message. It's merely a different flavor of agreement anti establishment, and most troubling is the tendency to dismiss all dissent out of hand as soft corruption.

 

Anyway, I wanted to chime in here on the outrage being directed at John Kasich for being a parent. Come on now. This is why we can't have nice things ... I understand there are good reasons for liberals to oppose him, but "don't go to parties with lots of alcohol" is something every parent says. Or at least mine did. Kasich has said worse before but we don't need to take a moment of him being caring and seize upon it to make him a sexist monster.