Donald Trump

Jearlpam0925

mickeyrat said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

mickeyrat said:

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.

Jearlpam0925

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

mickeyrat

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.....

Jearlpam0925

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

cincybearcat

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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!

mrussel1

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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

Halifax2TheMax

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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. 

Jearlpam0925

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

CM189191

https://youtu.be/mrX3Ql31URA

Still rings true as it ever did

ikiT

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

ikiT said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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. 

Jearlpam0925

Ledbetterman10 said:

ikiT said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ikiT said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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. 

Jearlpam0925

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ikiT said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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.

Jearlpam0925

And my apologies for derailing this thread. 

Anyway, this (whole thread) is amazing:

https://twitter.com/tburages/status/1227817449715830784?s=20

Ledbetterman10

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ikiT said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mickeyrat said:

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? 

dignin

Jearlpam0925 said:

And my apologies for derailing this thread. 

Anyway, this (whole thread) is amazing:

https://twitter.com/tburages/status/1227817449715830784?s=20

If only.

Americans should have been in the streets to defend their democracy.