heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
its a great boon to their economies to be sure, but other than that, why?
There is really no need for them to go first when they are in no way representative of the country as a whole.
I'm starting to come around on the idea that there's going to be a contested convention.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Even better would be no primaries - one election a year, rank-choice-voting style - while rolling back Citizens United. One of the few times where the name on the back of the jersey (candidate) should matter more than the one on the front (party). Less time for all this nonsense taking up our airwaves in the vein of toxic commercials, and spending hard-earned tax revenue on bullshit elections.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Even better would be no primaries - one election a year, rank-choice-voting style - while rolling back Citizens United. One of the few times where the name on the back of the jersey (candidate) should matter more than the one on the front (party). Less time for all this nonsense taking up our airwaves in the vein of toxic commercials, and spending hard-earned tax revenue on bullshit elections.
I'd take that. Anything that in any way upends the two-party system is okay with me.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Even better would be no primaries - one election a year, rank-choice-voting style - while rolling back Citizens United. One of the few times where the name on the back of the jersey (candidate) should matter more than the one on the front (party). Less time for all this nonsense taking up our airwaves in the vein of toxic commercials, and spending hard-earned tax revenue on bullshit elections.
I'd take that. Anything that in any way upends the two-party system is okay with me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Even better would be no primaries - one election a year, rank-choice-voting style - while rolling back Citizens United. One of the few times where the name on the back of the jersey (candidate) should matter more than the one on the front (party). Less time for all this nonsense taking up our airwaves in the vein of toxic commercials, and spending hard-earned tax revenue on bullshit elections.
I'd take that. Anything that in any way upends the two-party system is okay with me.
weekend voting.....
E Day a federal holiday or better yet an entire month of no-excuse absentee voting.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
So - wouldn’t this change benefit those with deep pockets the most? In iowa and NH candidates can meet just about everyone. Or would you prefer the Bloomberg’s just get to run all the tv ads and get all the votes
I see value in small states early. I can see value if figuring out more diverse electorate earlier too.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Even better would be no primaries - one election a year, rank-choice-voting style - while rolling back Citizens United. One of the few times where the name on the back of the jersey (candidate) should matter more than the one on the front (party). Less time for all this nonsense taking up our airwaves in the vein of toxic commercials, and spending hard-earned tax revenue on bullshit elections.
I'd take that. Anything that in any way upends the two-party system is okay with me.
weekend voting.....
Yeah why the hell don’t they do that??? Saturday would be perfect. Or a designated holiday like jearlpam said. Even if ya don’t create a new one. Combine Veterans Day and Election Day. What can be more American!
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Even better would be no primaries - one election a year, rank-choice-voting style - while rolling back Citizens United. One of the few times where the name on the back of the jersey (candidate) should matter more than the one on the front (party). Less time for all this nonsense taking up our airwaves in the vein of toxic commercials, and spending hard-earned tax revenue on bullshit elections.
I'd take that. Anything that in any way upends the two-party system is okay with me.
weekend voting.....
Yeah why the hell don’t they do that??? Saturday would be perfect. Or a designated holiday like jearlpam said. Even if ya don’t create a new one. Combine Veterans Day and Election Day. What can be more American!
Because there are certain parties or forces that are more interested in suppressing turnout
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Even better would be no primaries - one election a year, rank-choice-voting style - while rolling back Citizens United. One of the few times where the name on the back of the jersey (candidate) should matter more than the one on the front (party). Less time for all this nonsense taking up our airwaves in the vein of toxic commercials, and spending hard-earned tax revenue on bullshit elections.
I'd take that. Anything that in any way upends the two-party system is okay with me.
weekend voting.....
Yeah why the hell don’t they do that??? Saturday would be perfect. Or a designated holiday like jearlpam said. Even if ya don’t create a new one. Combine Veterans Day and Election Day. What can be more American!
Having a non-veteran presidential candidate collude with Russia, Russia, Russia to steal an election.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
So - wouldn’t this change benefit those with deep pockets the most? In iowa and NH candidates can meet just about everyone. Or would you prefer the Bloomberg’s just get to run all the tv ads and get all the votes
I see value in small states early. I can see value if figuring out more diverse electorate earlier too.
Definitely shouldn't have all the states go at once. But the first states should be more representative of the country as a whole. Also caucuses are a neat novelty, but it's 2020 - end them.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
Yeah that regional idea would work great. And you're dead-on about money. I've never donated to a pollical campaign. But if I did, and that candidate didn't even make it to the first primaries, well then I just totally flushed money down the toilet. And it wouldn't necessarily be the candidate's fault. I'd blame the system.
And beyond wasting money, your right to vote (and the candidates' right to secure votes) is sorta diminished in these primaries if the candidate you like is gone before your state votes. I'm from Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 28th. It's possible that someone like Joe Biden could be gone by then. Is that fair to a Pennsylvanian who might want to vote for him? Is it fair to HIM (or anyone like him) that faltering in early states could cost him a chance to even compete in later states?
Since this is all just a big game anyway, I often compare the American election system (especially when there's no incumbent) to something like the NFL playoffs, with the Dems being one conference and the GOP being the other, and then each conference's champion play in the Super Bowl (general election). Taking that metaphor one step further, candidates struggling in early primary states and having to drop out because of it is tantamount to an NFL team starting the season 1-4, and having the rest of their season cancelled because of it.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
Yeah that regional idea would work great. And you're dead-on about money. I've never donated to a pollical campaign. But if I did, and that candidate didn't even make it to the first primaries, well then I just totally flushed money down the toilet. And it wouldn't necessarily be the candidate's fault. I'd blame the system.
And beyond wasting money, your right to vote (and the candidates' right to secure votes) is sorta diminished in these primaries if the candidate you like is gone before your state votes. I'm from Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 28th. It's possible that someone like Joe Biden could be gone by then. Is that fair to a Pennsylvanian who might want to vote for him? Is it fair to HIM (or anyone like him) that faltering in early states could cost him a chance to even compete in later states?
Since this is all just a big game anyway, I often compare the American election system (especially when there's no incumbent) to something like the NFL playoffs, with the Dems being one conference and the GOP being the other, and then each conference's champion play in the Super Bowl (general election). Taking that metaphor one step further, candidates struggling in early primary states and having to drop out because of it is tantamount to an NFL team starting the season 1-4, and having the rest of their season cancelled because of it.
Just want to address your statement that I've underlined/bolded - if there's anything I've learned in all this is that donating to a candidate you believe in, are motivated by, is just as important as donating to any charity. Non-profits need to play by the rules laid out by them, which is done by these same fucking politicians. It's an underrated value really, for the average American that is. While PACs and corporations keep throwing millions of dollars around, helping a candidate put boots on the ground whether it be by volunteering or donating to their campaign is a powerful rebuke to the PAC money. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to donate to campaigns you believe in - especially at the local level. And now that the usual tax payer is not seeing the benefit of giving for deduction purposes, I give the majority of my money to public servants/campaigns/501c4's that meet my ideals and what I want the country to be.
The people in power in public office make the rules and I want to make sure I'm supporting those I want in those seats making the right decisions.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
Yeah that regional idea would work great. And you're dead-on about money. I've never donated to a pollical campaign. But if I did, and that candidate didn't even make it to the first primaries, well then I just totally flushed money down the toilet. And it wouldn't necessarily be the candidate's fault. I'd blame the system.
And beyond wasting money, your right to vote (and the candidates' right to secure votes) is sorta diminished in these primaries if the candidate you like is gone before your state votes. I'm from Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 28th. It's possible that someone like Joe Biden could be gone by then. Is that fair to a Pennsylvanian who might want to vote for him? Is it fair to HIM (or anyone like him) that faltering in early states could cost him a chance to even compete in later states?
Since this is all just a big game anyway, I often compare the American election system (especially when there's no incumbent) to something like the NFL playoffs, with the Dems being one conference and the GOP being the other, and then each conference's champion play in the Super Bowl (general election). Taking that metaphor one step further, candidates struggling in early primary states and having to drop out because of it is tantamount to an NFL team starting the season 1-4, and having the rest of their season cancelled because of it.
Just want to address your statement that I've underlined/bolded - if there's anything I've learned in all this is that donating to a candidate you believe in, are motivated by, is just as important as donating to any charity. Non-profits need to play by the rules laid out by them, which is done by these same fucking politicians. It's an underrated value really, for the average American that is. While PACs and corporations keep throwing millions of dollars around, helping a candidate put boots on the ground whether it be by volunteering or donating to their campaign is a powerful rebuke to the PAC money. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to donate to campaigns you believe in - especially at the local level. And now that the usual tax payer is not seeing the benefit of giving for deduction purposes, I give the majority of my money to public servants/campaigns/501c4's that meet my ideals and what I want the country to be.
The people in power in public office make the rules and I want to make sure I'm supporting those I want in those seats making the right decisions.
I've never believed that strongly in any political candidate to donate to them. But if I did, I certainly wouldn't donate to a primary candidate for all the reasons I laid out: they might not even make it to my state to vote for them (though this wouldn't really apply to me because I have no party affiliation and can't vote in primaries), or in the case of someone like Kamala Harris, they may not even make it to Iowa. In the end, if you donated to her presidential campaign, basically you just gave her money to help her become more famous.
I donate to cancer research because my mother died of cancer. That's the only thing I give my money away to.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
Yeah that regional idea would work great. And you're dead-on about money. I've never donated to a pollical campaign. But if I did, and that candidate didn't even make it to the first primaries, well then I just totally flushed money down the toilet. And it wouldn't necessarily be the candidate's fault. I'd blame the system.
And beyond wasting money, your right to vote (and the candidates' right to secure votes) is sorta diminished in these primaries if the candidate you like is gone before your state votes. I'm from Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 28th. It's possible that someone like Joe Biden could be gone by then. Is that fair to a Pennsylvanian who might want to vote for him? Is it fair to HIM (or anyone like him) that faltering in early states could cost him a chance to even compete in later states?
Since this is all just a big game anyway, I often compare the American election system (especially when there's no incumbent) to something like the NFL playoffs, with the Dems being one conference and the GOP being the other, and then each conference's champion play in the Super Bowl (general election). Taking that metaphor one step further, candidates struggling in early primary states and having to drop out because of it is tantamount to an NFL team starting the season 1-4, and having the rest of their season cancelled because of it.
Just want to address your statement that I've underlined/bolded - if there's anything I've learned in all this is that donating to a candidate you believe in, are motivated by, is just as important as donating to any charity. Non-profits need to play by the rules laid out by them, which is done by these same fucking politicians. It's an underrated value really, for the average American that is. While PACs and corporations keep throwing millions of dollars around, helping a candidate put boots on the ground whether it be by volunteering or donating to their campaign is a powerful rebuke to the PAC money. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to donate to campaigns you believe in - especially at the local level. And now that the usual tax payer is not seeing the benefit of giving for deduction purposes, I give the majority of my money to public servants/campaigns/501c4's that meet my ideals and what I want the country to be.
The people in power in public office make the rules and I want to make sure I'm supporting those I want in those seats making the right decisions.
I've never believed that strongly in any political candidate to donate to them. But if I did, I certainly wouldn't donate to a primary candidate for all the reasons I laid out: they might not even make it to my state to vote for them (though this wouldn't really apply to me because I have no party affiliation and can't vote in primaries), or in the case of someone like Kamala Harris, they may not even make it to Iowa. In the end, if you donated to her presidential campaign, basically you just gave her money to help her become more famous.
I donate to cancer research because my mother died of cancer. That's the only thing I give my money away to.
Absolutely - I guess I emphasize the giving critically on the local/state level. My view if fuck the federal government, at least I can control what my state does as long as it doesn't violate the consitution.
Sorry about your mother. In my mind this is another reason I would keep pushing money behind candidates and parties - especially in office - for things like M4A and other forms of socialized healthcare. The benefit of this type of legislation would put a cap on the maximum amount of out-of-pocket someone needs to pay when it comes to diagnoses like cancer. No one should go broke because of cancer, so I'll gladly give to those candidates in office who believe the same.
Also, would like to say, on the primary issue - I give $25/mo to Elizabeth Warren, which I do because I'm financially capable of doing so. If someone even gave a $1 to someone they believe in - whether it's federal or local - it makes a difference.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
Yeah that regional idea would work great. And you're dead-on about money. I've never donated to a pollical campaign. But if I did, and that candidate didn't even make it to the first primaries, well then I just totally flushed money down the toilet. And it wouldn't necessarily be the candidate's fault. I'd blame the system.
And beyond wasting money, your right to vote (and the candidates' right to secure votes) is sorta diminished in these primaries if the candidate you like is gone before your state votes. I'm from Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 28th. It's possible that someone like Joe Biden could be gone by then. Is that fair to a Pennsylvanian who might want to vote for him? Is it fair to HIM (or anyone like him) that faltering in early states could cost him a chance to even compete in later states?
Since this is all just a big game anyway, I often compare the American election system (especially when there's no incumbent) to something like the NFL playoffs, with the Dems being one conference and the GOP being the other, and then each conference's champion play in the Super Bowl (general election). Taking that metaphor one step further, candidates struggling in early primary states and having to drop out because of it is tantamount to an NFL team starting the season 1-4, and having the rest of their season cancelled because of it.
Just want to address your statement that I've underlined/bolded - if there's anything I've learned in all this is that donating to a candidate you believe in, are motivated by, is just as important as donating to any charity. Non-profits need to play by the rules laid out by them, which is done by these same fucking politicians. It's an underrated value really, for the average American that is. While PACs and corporations keep throwing millions of dollars around, helping a candidate put boots on the ground whether it be by volunteering or donating to their campaign is a powerful rebuke to the PAC money. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to donate to campaigns you believe in - especially at the local level. And now that the usual tax payer is not seeing the benefit of giving for deduction purposes, I give the majority of my money to public servants/campaigns/501c4's that meet my ideals and what I want the country to be.
The people in power in public office make the rules and I want to make sure I'm supporting those I want in those seats making the right decisions.
I've never believed that strongly in any political candidate to donate to them. But if I did, I certainly wouldn't donate to a primary candidate for all the reasons I laid out: they might not even make it to my state to vote for them (though this wouldn't really apply to me because I have no party affiliation and can't vote in primaries), or in the case of someone like Kamala Harris, they may not even make it to Iowa. In the end, if you donated to her presidential campaign, basically you just gave her money to help her become more famous.
I donate to cancer research because my mother died of cancer. That's the only thing I give my money away to.
Absolutely - I guess I emphasize the giving critically on the local/state level. My view if fuck the federal government, at least I can control what my state does as long as it doesn't violate the consitution.
Sorry about your mother. In my mind this is another reason I would keep pushing money behind candidates and parties - especially in office - for things like M4A and other forms of socialized healthcare. The benefit of this type of legislation would put a cap on the maximum amount of out-of-pocket someone needs to pay when it comes to diagnoses like cancer. No one should go broke because of cancer, so I'll gladly give to those candidates in office who believe the same.
Also, would like to say, on the primary issue - I give $25/mo to Elizabeth Warren, which I do because I'm financially capable of doing so. If someone even gave a $1 to someone they believe in - whether it's federal or local - it makes a difference.
Fair enough, and thanks for your sympathies for my mother. Here's a question though...assuming Warren doesn't make it very far in this primary, when she drops out, would you then begin donating to someone with similar policies? Like, are more about donating towards the policy or the candidate?
Americans should have been in the streets to defend their democracy.
That Judge is in no way sympathetic tol Stone OR Trump. Believe she has discretion in sentencing. She doesnt HAVE to go with the recommendation.........
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Americans should have been in the streets to defend their democracy.
That Judge is in no way sympathetic tol Stone OR Trump. Believe she has discretion in sentencing. She doesnt HAVE to go with the recommendation.........
Not inclined to believe she will.....
I get that, but this has much bigger and farther implications than just the Stone case.
Since Trump’s rise to the nation’s highest office, his
inflammatory language — often condemned as racist and xenophobic — has seeped
into schools across America.
By
Hannah Natanson, John Woodrow Cox and Perry Stein ● Read
more »
Americans should have been in the streets to defend their democracy.
That Judge is in no way sympathetic tol Stone OR Trump. Believe she has discretion in sentencing. She doesnt HAVE to go with the recommendation.........
Not inclined to believe she will.....
I get that, but this has much bigger and farther implications than just the Stone case.
And I get that as well. However, its completely in line with Trumps rhetoric and tweeting since he first raised that right hand with his left behind his back crossing his tiny fingers
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Since Trump’s rise to the nation’s highest office, his
inflammatory language — often condemned as racist and xenophobic — has seeped
into schools across America.
By
Hannah Natanson, John Woodrow Cox and Perry Stein ● Read
more »
Well he is the bully-in-chief Supported by people who think bullying is okay as long as you pretend to be a lover of christ, guns, and forced birth. And of course it's okay as long as your 401K is increasing in value.
On February 27, 2018, Hicks testified to a Congressional committee that she had told "white lies" on Trump's behalf.[7][8][9] The next day, Hicks announced her intention to resign as White House Communications Director.[10][11] She left the White House a month later.
heres what I really dont understand, why have we placed such great importance on Iowas convoluted process and NH fraction of ots 1.3 million population?
Oh I can answer that one for you....
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
Yeah that regional idea would work great. And you're dead-on about money. I've never donated to a pollical campaign. But if I did, and that candidate didn't even make it to the first primaries, well then I just totally flushed money down the toilet. And it wouldn't necessarily be the candidate's fault. I'd blame the system.
And beyond wasting money, your right to vote (and the candidates' right to secure votes) is sorta diminished in these primaries if the candidate you like is gone before your state votes. I'm from Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 28th. It's possible that someone like Joe Biden could be gone by then. Is that fair to a Pennsylvanian who might want to vote for him? Is it fair to HIM (or anyone like him) that faltering in early states could cost him a chance to even compete in later states?
Since this is all just a big game anyway, I often compare the American election system (especially when there's no incumbent) to something like the NFL playoffs, with the Dems being one conference and the GOP being the other, and then each conference's champion play in the Super Bowl (general election). Taking that metaphor one step further, candidates struggling in early primary states and having to drop out because of it is tantamount to an NFL team starting the season 1-4, and having the rest of their season cancelled because of it.
Just want to address your statement that I've underlined/bolded - if there's anything I've learned in all this is that donating to a candidate you believe in, are motivated by, is just as important as donating to any charity. Non-profits need to play by the rules laid out by them, which is done by these same fucking politicians. It's an underrated value really, for the average American that is. While PACs and corporations keep throwing millions of dollars around, helping a candidate put boots on the ground whether it be by volunteering or donating to their campaign is a powerful rebuke to the PAC money. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to donate to campaigns you believe in - especially at the local level. And now that the usual tax payer is not seeing the benefit of giving for deduction purposes, I give the majority of my money to public servants/campaigns/501c4's that meet my ideals and what I want the country to be.
The people in power in public office make the rules and I want to make sure I'm supporting those I want in those seats making the right decisions.
I've never believed that strongly in any political candidate to donate to them. But if I did, I certainly wouldn't donate to a primary candidate for all the reasons I laid out: they might not even make it to my state to vote for them (though this wouldn't really apply to me because I have no party affiliation and can't vote in primaries), or in the case of someone like Kamala Harris, they may not even make it to Iowa. In the end, if you donated to her presidential campaign, basically you just gave her money to help her become more famous.
I donate to cancer research because my mother died of cancer. That's the only thing I give my money away to.
Absolutely - I guess I emphasize the giving critically on the local/state level. My view if fuck the federal government, at least I can control what my state does as long as it doesn't violate the consitution.
Sorry about your mother. In my mind this is another reason I would keep pushing money behind candidates and parties - especially in office - for things like M4A and other forms of socialized healthcare. The benefit of this type of legislation would put a cap on the maximum amount of out-of-pocket someone needs to pay when it comes to diagnoses like cancer. No one should go broke because of cancer, so I'll gladly give to those candidates in office who believe the same.
Also, would like to say, on the primary issue - I give $25/mo to Elizabeth Warren, which I do because I'm financially capable of doing so. If someone even gave a $1 to someone they believe in - whether it's federal or local - it makes a difference.
Fair enough, and thanks for your sympathies for my mother. Here's a question though...assuming Warren doesn't make it very far in this primary, when she drops out, would you then begin donating to someone with similar policies? Like, are more about donating towards the policy or the candidate?
Definitely policy over candidate 1000%.
I'm a pretty practical, pragmatic guy, but my ideals can get the best of me sometimes as I would expect anyone with a pulse that's considered human should. I honestly think there's going to be a contested convention. Amy went all-in on the all-white state of NH. She will be most likely out of it after March because I don't think she has the money to go through all of it.. Warren is a lot of peoples 2nd choice overall. She's still 3rd in the delegate vote, which at the same time so far is a fraction of the total delegate vote tally. I think Biden takes a complete beating but limps around, Bloomberg is going to buy his way through Super Tuesday. Not sure if Pete has the amount of cash to go all the way unless he surges ahead. Some sort of combo of Warren/Sanders/Pete/Biden is going to hang around until June with no one being the clear winner. That's at least my personal view. When and if Warren's out, then Sanders gets my money. From there I'll wait till the convention and see who the nominee is. The only ones that would really give me pains to donate to - and I most likely won't - are Bloomberg & Biden. Bloomberg can print money so he doesn't need from me. Biden is Generic Party Dem, also doesn't need it from me. I'll reluctantly give Pete or Amy my money maybe. After the convention I'll be hitting the ground with my feet knocking doors in my own division here in South Philly, then make some runs in rural PA as well, for whom ever the Dem nominee is. If everyone gives just 2% effort then no one person needs to do it all.
Since Trump’s rise to the nation’s highest office, his
inflammatory language — often condemned as racist and xenophobic — has seeped
into schools across America.
By
Hannah Natanson, John Woodrow Cox and Perry Stein ● Read
more »
Well he is the bully-in-chief Supported by people who think bullying is okay as long as you pretend to be a lover of christ, guns, and forced birth. And of course it's okay as long as your 401K is increasing in value.
You almost nailed it, but isn't a 409K?
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Conservative radio personality and Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh said 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg had little chance of winning the election because "America's still not ready to elect a gay guy".
Conservative radio personality and Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh said 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg had little chance of winning the election because "America's still not ready to elect a gay guy".
I hate Rush... ...but I think he's right about this.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Comments
I'm starting to come around on the idea that there's going to be a contested convention.
The primary process is STUPID. They should do every state at once, or if that's too much to ask, Ten states at a time. Ten "super Tuesdays" if you will. The way they do it with Iowa and then New Hampshire is a perfect example of "Welp, this is how it's always been!" I fucking hate it.
And don't get me started on delegates and super delegates, or the possibility of a brokered convention.
Edit: Just realized that I capitalized the word "Ten." That's when you KNOW you're a Pearl Jam fan lol.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I see value in small states early. I can see value if figuring out more diverse electorate earlier too.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Still rings true as it ever did
That seems very rational. The process they employ now is too expensive and those early states are not representative of the population as a whole.
How about 5 Regional primaries? Northeast Southeast Midwest Northwest Southwest...one a week for 5 weeks (with weekend voting and easy early and absentee voting as well) and then a general election...Get this whole process done in two months. No running for president the day after you're sworn in, no rallies, and elected officials actually doing their jobs instead of running for president for half the length of the term.
Money is a also huge stumbling block. Look at the amount of $$$ burned through by Kamala Harris over the course of 2019. It had to have been at least 30M dollars, probably more. FOR WHAT? In addition to the diverse demographics of the Dems voting population being considered, there ought to be a level playing field. Instead of heeding the call to "get money out of politics", Tom Perez Dee's made fundraising totals (and POLLING? now that's stupid...) a metric of "viability" for inclusion on the stage debates; all that did was jettison of the ideas and ideals and ENERGY of Julian Castro, John Delaney, Beto, Kristen Gillibrand, and the aforementioned Kamala. (I would have PAID to watch KH debate Trumpito, by the way).
He may need to be impeached again. That really did not take long.
And beyond wasting money, your right to vote (and the candidates' right to secure votes) is sorta diminished in these primaries if the candidate you like is gone before your state votes. I'm from Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 28th. It's possible that someone like Joe Biden could be gone by then. Is that fair to a Pennsylvanian who might want to vote for him? Is it fair to HIM (or anyone like him) that faltering in early states could cost him a chance to even compete in later states?
Since this is all just a big game anyway, I often compare the American election system (especially when there's no incumbent) to something like the NFL playoffs, with the Dems being one conference and the GOP being the other, and then each conference's champion play in the Super Bowl (general election). Taking that metaphor one step further, candidates struggling in early primary states and having to drop out because of it is tantamount to an NFL team starting the season 1-4, and having the rest of their season cancelled because of it.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
The people in power in public office make the rules and I want to make sure I'm supporting those I want in those seats making the right decisions.
I donate to cancer research because my mother died of cancer. That's the only thing I give my money away to.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Sorry about your mother. In my mind this is another reason I would keep pushing money behind candidates and parties - especially in office - for things like M4A and other forms of socialized healthcare. The benefit of this type of legislation would put a cap on the maximum amount of out-of-pocket someone needs to pay when it comes to diagnoses like cancer. No one should go broke because of cancer, so I'll gladly give to those candidates in office who believe the same.
Also, would like to say, on the primary issue - I give $25/mo to Elizabeth Warren, which I do because I'm financially capable of doing so. If someone even gave a $1 to someone they believe in - whether it's federal or local - it makes a difference.
Anyway, this (whole thread) is amazing:
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Americans should have been in the streets to defend their democracy.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Trump’s rhetoric has changed the way hundreds of kids are bullied in classrooms
Since Trump’s rise to the nation’s highest office, his inflammatory language — often condemned as racist and xenophobic — has seeped into schools across America.
By Hannah Natanson, John Woodrow Cox and Perry Stein ● Read more »Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Supported by people who think bullying is okay as long as you pretend to be a lover of christ, guns, and forced birth. And of course it's okay as long as your 401K is increasing in value.
On February 27, 2018, Hicks testified to a Congressional committee that she had told "white lies" on Trump's behalf.[7][8][9] The next day, Hicks announced her intention to resign as White House Communications Director.[10][11] She left the White House a month later.
She was dating Rob Porter in 2018 when he resigned as White House Staff Secretary after abuse allegations from his two ex-wives were made public.[52][53] Corey Lewandowski had an on-and-off extramarital affair with Hicks[54]. Trump stated Hicks was "the best piece of tail" Lewandowski would ever have per Michael Wolff's book: Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House[55].
Birds of a feather, I suppose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Hicks
https://apple.news/ArzyZXvN0SbKkZdIW8XPiRQ
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm a pretty practical, pragmatic guy, but my ideals can get the best of me sometimes as I would expect anyone with a pulse that's considered human should. I honestly think there's going to be a contested convention. Amy went all-in on the all-white state of NH. She will be most likely out of it after March because I don't think she has the money to go through all of it.. Warren is a lot of peoples 2nd choice overall. She's still 3rd in the delegate vote, which at the same time so far is a fraction of the total delegate vote tally. I think Biden takes a complete beating but limps around, Bloomberg is going to buy his way through Super Tuesday. Not sure if Pete has the amount of cash to go all the way unless he surges ahead. Some sort of combo of Warren/Sanders/Pete/Biden is going to hang around until June with no one being the clear winner. That's at least my personal view. When and if Warren's out, then Sanders gets my money. From there I'll wait till the convention and see who the nominee is. The only ones that would really give me pains to donate to - and I most likely won't - are Bloomberg & Biden. Bloomberg can print money so he doesn't need from me. Biden is Generic Party Dem, also doesn't need it from me. I'll reluctantly give Pete or Amy my money maybe. After the convention I'll be hitting the ground with my feet knocking doors in my own division here in South Philly, then make some runs in rural PA as well, for whom ever the Dem nominee is. If everyone gives just 2% effort then no one person needs to do it all.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Conservative radio personality and Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh said 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg had little chance of winning the election because "America's still not ready to elect a gay guy".
...but I think he's right about this.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin