BigRedBuster Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 "I don't have any hard facts for the following assertion, but I'm gonna plow ahead anyway" k. You talking to me? It's what everyone's doing on the topic. Would you prefer if we pretend we have data to back it up? I actually tried to look for it. No, I'm sure he's talking about me. It's interesting when at least twice I have said I'm fine with people disagreeing with me on that...it's just my gut feeling. But....hey....if people still want to keep making a big deal out of my thoughts....Oh well.....waste your time away. The fact still remains. The maps I posted are the realities of Republicans gaining power. If the Democrats want to ignore them...well.....so be it. Link to comment
Fru Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 "I don't have any hard facts for the following assertion, but I'm gonna plow ahead anyway" k. You talking to me? It's what everyone's doing on the topic. Would you prefer if we pretend we have data to back it up? I actually tried to look for it. No, I'm sure he's talking about me. It's interesting when at least twice I have said I'm fine with people disagreeing with me on that...it's just my gut feeling. But....hey....if people still want to keep making a big deal out of my thoughts....Oh well.....waste your time away. The fact still remains. The maps I posted are the realities of Republicans gaining power. If the Democrats want to ignore them...well.....so be it. Disagreeing is fine. I just have a difficult time with the fact vs. feeling argument. Those maps don't tell the whole story. Gerrymandering, population size, restrictive voter ID laws, closing of nearly a thousand polling places. But if you just want to ignore those things ... well ... so be it. 2 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 I don't get the whole map argument. If the Democrats don't care about/ignore rural areas then the GOP doesn't care about/ignores cities. The truth of the matter, imo, is it's more of a cultural thing. The GOP is not better for poor people in rural areas than in cities but they still vote Republican. The Democratic party is not better for more affluent people in cities but they still vote Democrat. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 "I don't have any hard facts for the following assertion, but I'm gonna plow ahead anyway" k. You talking to me? It's what everyone's doing on the topic. Would you prefer if we pretend we have data to back it up? I actually tried to look for it. No, I'm sure he's talking about me. It's interesting when at least twice I have said I'm fine with people disagreeing with me on that...it's just my gut feeling. But....hey....if people still want to keep making a big deal out of my thoughts....Oh well.....waste your time away. The fact still remains. The maps I posted are the realities of Republicans gaining power. If the Democrats want to ignore them...well.....so be it. Disagreeing is fine. I just have a difficult time with the fact vs. feeling argument. Those maps don't tell the whole story. Gerrymandering, population size, restrictive voter ID laws, closing of nearly a thousand polling places. But if you just want to ignore those things ... well ... so be it. Disagreeing is fine. Expressing opinions based on a guess if stated as such is fine also. You are also fine with disagreeing with it. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 I do tire of the DNC rigged the primary bit. They were not impartial. They did not "rig" the primary. That said, yeah, they need to figure out how to be less impotent. Knapp's post about them talking about judo while getting punched in the face comes to mind. They've got a few decent young talents. I really like Jason Kander a lot, even if he's too green right now. Cory Booker. Warren is good but a bit up there in years. Franken is intriguing. What's important is that they're encouraging regular people to run for office, which should help find talent. Not saying Clinton was a good candidate, Knapp. That's a personal thing. I didn't mind her myself. But I could still dig up poll numbers that show broad support for a lot of Democratic policies. The Dem party has been rigged since they added the super delegates back in the 80's. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 I do tire of the DNC rigged the primary bit. They were not impartial. They did not "rig" the primary. That said, yeah, they need to figure out how to be less impotent. Knapp's post about them talking about judo while getting punched in the face comes to mind. They've got a few decent young talents. I really like Jason Kander a lot, even if he's too green right now. Cory Booker. Warren is good but a bit up there in years. Franken is intriguing. What's important is that they're encouraging regular people to run for office, which should help find talent. Not saying Clinton was a good candidate, Knapp. That's a personal thing. I didn't mind her myself. But I could still dig up poll numbers that show broad support for a lot of Democratic policies. The Dem party has been rigged since they added the super delegates back in the 80's. Some folks feel that way. I disagree. They tired of having their butts kicked when they nominated somebody too far to the left like McGovern in 1972... After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam war liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[10] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections. The rules implemented by the McGovern-Fraser Commission shifted the balance of power to primary elections and caucuses, mandating that all delegates be chosen via mechanisms open to all party members.[10] As a result of this change the number of primaries more than doubled over the next three presidential election cycles, from 17 in 1968 to 35 in 1980.[10] Despite the radically increased level of primary participation, with 32 million voters taking part in the selection process by 1980, the Democrats proved largely unsuccessful at the ballot box, with the 1972 presidential campaign of McGovern and the 1980 re-election campaign of Jimmy Carterresulting in landslide defeats.[10] Democratic Party affiliation skidded from 41 percent of the electorate at the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission report to just 31 percent in the aftermath of the 1980 electoral debacle.[10] I guess the crux is whether you want more power to the primary voters who may nominate a more unelectable candidate or if you want to give a small deal of say to party leaders. Obviously that doesn't always work either. But this year they agreed to cut down on supers... Under the reform package, in future Democratic Conventions, about two-thirds of superdelegates would be bound to the results of state primaries and caucuses. The remaining one-third – Members of Congress, Governors, and distinguished party leaders – would remain unpledged and free to support the candidate of their choice.[9] I guess I'm pretty indifferent to the concept either way. If people really hate the idea, let's do away with them. I'm just worried about what happened in the 70s and 80s when they did that the first time, given that the opposition party is being headed up largely by a bunch of radicals at the moment. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I do tire of the DNC rigged the primary bit. They were not impartial. They did not "rig" the primary. That said, yeah, they need to figure out how to be less impotent. Knapp's post about them talking about judo while getting punched in the face comes to mind. They've got a few decent young talents. I really like Jason Kander a lot, even if he's too green right now. Cory Booker. Warren is good but a bit up there in years. Franken is intriguing. What's important is that they're encouraging regular people to run for office, which should help find talent. Not saying Clinton was a good candidate, Knapp. That's a personal thing. I didn't mind her myself. But I could still dig up poll numbers that show broad support for a lot of Democratic policies. The Dem party has been rigged since they added the super delegates back in the 80's. Some folks feel that way. I disagree. They tired of having their butts kicked when they nominated somebody too far to the left like McGovern in 1972... After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam war liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.%5B10%5D A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections. The rules implemented by the McGovern-Fraser Commission shifted the balance of power to primary elections and caucuses, mandating that all delegates be chosen via mechanisms open to all party members.%5B10%5D As a result of this change the number of primaries more than doubled over the next three presidential election cycles, from 17 in 1968 to 35 in 1980.%5B10%5D Despite the radically increased level of primary participation, with 32 million voters taking part in the selection process by 1980, the Democrats proved largely unsuccessful at the ballot box, with the 1972 presidential campaign of McGovern and the 1980 re-election campaign of Jimmy Carterresulting in landslide defeats.%5B10%5D Democratic Party affiliation skidded from 41 percent of the electorate at the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission report to just 31 percent in the aftermath of the 1980 electoral debacle.%5B10%5D I guess the crux is whether you want more power to the primary voters who may nominate a more unelectable candidate or if you want to give a small deal of say to party leaders. Obviously that doesn't always work either. But this year they agreed to cut down on supers... Under the reform package, in future Democratic Conventions, about two-thirds of superdelegates would be bound to the results of state primaries and caucuses. The remaining one-third – Members of Congress, Governors, and distinguished party leaders – would remain unpledged and free to support the candidate of their choice.%5B9%5D I guess I'm pretty indifferent to the concept either way. If people really hate the idea, let's do away with them. I'm just worried about what happened in the 70s and 80s when they did that the first time, given that the opposition party is being headed up largely by a bunch of radicals at the moment. Basically, the party leadership didn't like losing control to the voters in their own party and used two election losses to justify regaining that power. The Dems are now trying to have their cake and eat it too by having the appearance of the voters electing their candidate but the party establishment maintaining control. The Dems shouldn't then be surprised that the voters feel the primaries are rigged. This quote from 2008 sums up my feelings: “The whole idea of superdelegates smacks of a bygone era of smoke-filled rooms and horse trading,” said Kind, who has urged party Chairman Howard Dean to form a task force on the practice. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Basically, the party leadership didn't like losing control to the voters in their own party and used two election losses to justify regaining that power. The Dems are now trying to have their cake and eat it too by having the appearance of the voters electing their candidate but the party establishment maintaining control. The Dems shouldn't then be surprised that the voters feel the primaries are rigged. This quote from 2008 sums up my feelings: “The whole idea of superdelegates smacks of a bygone era of smoke-filled rooms and horse trading,” said Kind, who has urged party Chairman Howard Dean to form a task force on the practice. Well, like I said, they just bound 2/3 of them to state results, so they've been largely neutered. I'd also point out that the supers never went against the person to wound up with the most pledged delegates. They never flipped the result. But oh well, if people want to get them out, get them out. I just hope people don't complain if we get ultra left vs. ultra right in the future. The same problem has plagued the GOP... people that sell well to the base in the primaries don't seem to do well in the general. Centrists run the risk of being left out in the wilderness ideologically. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Does anyone actually have an opinion on any of these folks for this position? Link to comment
Lil' Red Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Does anyone actually have an opinion on any of these folks for this position? Between Perez and Ellison, I'd go with Ellison. I don't know enough about the others to have an opinion on them. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Does anyone actually have an opinion on any of these folks for this position? I'm for getting money out of politics, so I'd like Ronan to win, but he's got almost no chance. The rest of the candidates are virtually clones of each other. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 I like this. In response to this: Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Perez nominated Ellison to the position of deputy chair during his acceptance, to thunderous applause. If nothing else, these guys beat the hell out of Wasserman-Schulz. Pretty progressive dudes, talking about a 50 state strategy... saying all the right things. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Does anyone actually have an opinion on any of these folks for this position? I'm for getting money out of politics, so I'd like Ronan to win, but he's got almost no chance. The rest of the candidates are virtually clones of each other. Interesting. I was a big fan of Buttigieg, but he bowed out before the first tally. Still think he's got a good future. I only wonder if they'd gone with a completely anti-dark money stance, how much damage the GOP could've done electorally while they made no similar concessions. I always thought Bernie was going to be in trouble trying to fund a general election campaign because I didn't know if he could keep the money flowing. I was more in favor of play the game to win, then attack dark money from a position of power. Looking back, it would have been nice to at least see how that could've gone... Link to comment
Recommended Posts