The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
Uh-oh, I might have to burn my Benaroya.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I'll burn it for you. I'll pay for the shipping too.Halifax2TheMax said:Uh-oh, I might have to burn my Benaroya.0 -
That was my point and has been my opinion for years, and was mentioned on this board and debated by you a few days ago. No where have I advocated for states to not have primaries or to not have a voice. I have argued that South Carolina shouldn't be trumpeted as an indicator of where the Democratic base is, nor should it be shaping the Democratic race. By coming third on the calendar (and voting the way establishment Dems want) it does both. You can continue to accuse me of racism for saying that, it will not change my opinion or stop me from voicing it.mrussel1 said:
That wasn't your point. Your point was that red states shouldn't get a vote, not that SC is too early in the process. That's a different argument. I'm all about a restructuring of the calendar. I'd also like to end all caucuses which I think are bad for lower socioeconomic voters. But that's all very different than telling certain states that they dont' get a voice at all.JimmyV said:
Seriously? This is what you are falling back on? C'mon, man. You are better than this.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so everyone gets a primary but SC. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Maybe we can put all the white states first, and then let the blacks vote at the end too, since the most AA heavy states are in the South, which are red.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
You're on one state. What about AZ, VA, CO, NV, NM, all of which had flipped. Sorry, I think most of us in teh party want to hear the voices of all of our members, not just the ones that you believe are important.JimmyV said:
South Carolina has had the same voice since 1980 when its primary began, yet it has been a red state going on 45 years. You let me know when that changes.mrussel1 said:
the states are red until they aren't. Would NH have voted Democrat in 2004 if they weren't allowed a voice in the primary? Your argument is yes, they would. You have no evidence that it's true.JimmyV said:
NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.
My point remains. Having SC vote third and treating it as some sort of bellwether for the Democratic base are both mistakes.Post edited by JimmyV on___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
JimmyV said:
I'm not a Bernie guy. I'm a beat Trump guy. We'll see who wins where tonight. IMO, a frontrunner with a delegate lead padded by red states won't help us much in the fall.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
Democrats win when the base is energized. Whether they live in a state they have a chance to win like NC, or one where the odds are low like SC. That's why turnout is such an important indicator and was at record levels in SC and that's why the party went to bat for Biden. He got better turnout than obama.
I know we disagreed on this before SC, but to me it seems fairly logical. In the 3 states bernie did well, turnout was nothing special, which is ample evidence the millenials are not about to set records for a new revolution (maybe that changes tonight ). In the state Biden did well, turnout was excellent.
We are looking for indicators as to who is energized to vote, but SC is not entirely a lost cause.
The 2018 SC governor race was only 54-46. And obama lost there by a similar margin 10 years earlier. Didnt the dems just flip a congressional seat there?
There are plenty of reasons to stay competitive in SC. It might not be that far behind another southern state, TX. It used to be +20 R. Now its +5R and O'Rourke lost by less than 3.
I agree Bernie is the favorite to pull ahead tonight mostly from CA. But are the demographics there representative of who needs to turn out in swing states to give the dems the advantage?0 -
I don't know. I fully expect Biden to be in the lead tomorrow morning. We'll see.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
I'm not a Bernie guy. I'm a beat Trump guy. We'll see who wins where tonight. IMO, a frontrunner with a delegate lead padded by red states won't help us much in the fall.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
Democrats win when the base is energized. Whether they live in a state they have a chance to win like NC, or one where the odds are low like SC. That's why turnout is such an important indicator and was at record levels in SC and that's why the party went to bat for Biden. He got better turnout than obama.
I know we disagreed on this before SC, but to me it seems fairly logical. In the 3 states bernie did well, turnout was nothing special, which is ample evidence the millenials are not about to set records for a new revolution (maybe that changes tonight ). In the state Biden did well, turnout was excellent.
We are looking for indicators as to who is energized to vote, but SC is not entirely a lost cause.
The 2018 SC governor race was only 54-46. And obama lost there by a similar margin 10 years earlier. Didnt the dems just flip a congressional seat there?
There are plenty of reasons to stay competitive in SC. It might not be that far behind another southern state, TX. It used to be +20 R. Now its +5R and O'Rourke lost by less than 3.
I agree Bernie is the favorite to pull ahead tonight mostly from CA. But are the demographics there representative of who needs to turn out in swing states to give the dems the advantage?
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
what dreams said:
I will not vote for Bernie if he is the nominee, and I will sit out. Most people in my circle feel the same way.CM189191 said:josevolution said:So will most of you vote for who ever comes out of the Democrats or just not vote or vote for the Baffoon?
I wish that were the case Jose.
Unfortunately I'm concerned there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't understand we have a two-party system.
They'll get distracted by shiny objects like Tulsi or Bernie or Stein, and piss their vote away because they don't understand the fundamentals of how our government works.
I'm tired of being insulted and attacked as an "establishment" party voter in conspiracy with corporate billionaires to permanently oppress my fellow citizens just because I disagree with his pie in the sky plans. I'm tired of him tearing down journalists and the media the same way Buffoon does just to sow doubt and distrust of people who don't agree with him. I'm tired of him deciding the rules need to change every time the rules don't work in his favor.
I absolutely will not vote for another authoritarian-inclined leader of a "movement" to turn this country upside down. Can't do it.
I feel exactly the same way about that message but beating trump is of utmost importance. Even if Warren were to be the nominee, heavens forbid.0 -
To be clear, I'm not accusing you of racism. In my world, there's a regulatory saying "it's not intent it's effect". In other words, pushing red states to the back isn't intended to cost AA community their voice in the primaries, but the effect would be there.JimmyV said:
That was my point and has been my opinion for years, and was mentioned on this board and debated by you a few days ago. No where have I advocated for states to not have primaries or have a voice. I have argued that South Carolina shouldn't be trumpeted as an indicator of where the Democratic base is, nor should it be shaping the Democratic race. You can continue to accuse me of racism for saying that, it will not change my opinion or stop me from voicing it.mrussel1 said:
That wasn't your point. Your point was that red states shouldn't get a vote, not that SC is too early in the process. That's a different argument. I'm all about a restructuring of the calendar. I'd also like to end all caucuses which I think are bad for lower socioeconomic voters. But that's all very different than telling certain states that they dont' get a voice at all.JimmyV said:
Seriously? This is what you are falling back on? C'mon, man. You are better than this.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so everyone gets a primary but SC. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Maybe we can put all the white states first, and then let the blacks vote at the end too, since the most AA heavy states are in the South, which are red.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
You're on one state. What about AZ, VA, CO, NV, NM, all of which had flipped. Sorry, I think most of us in teh party want to hear the voices of all of our members, not just the ones that you believe are important.JimmyV said:
South Carolina has had the same voice since 1980 when its primary began, yet it has been a red state going on 45 years. You let me know when that changes.mrussel1 said:
the states are red until they aren't. Would NH have voted Democrat in 2004 if they weren't allowed a voice in the primary? Your argument is yes, they would. You have no evidence that it's true.JimmyV said:
NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.
My point remains. Having SC vote third and treating it as some sort of bellwether for the Democratic base are both mistakes.
Second, perhaps we've been talking past each other because this whole argument, I have had the lens that you were arguing that only blue and purple states should get a primary. Not that you are saying that SC should be later in the process.0 -
tbergs said:
Who said Biden did better than Obama in SC? Obama had 30,000 more votes in his primary win in 2008 and the total democratic primary is on par with numbers from this year for that state.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
Democrats win when the base is energized. Whether they live in a state they have a chance to win like NC, or one where the odds are low like SC. That's why turnout is such an important indicator and was at record levels in SC and that's why the party went to bat for Biden. He got better turnout than obama.
I know we disagreed on this before SC, but to me it seems fairly logical. In the 3 states bernie did well, turnout was nothing special, which is ample evidence the millenials are not about to set records for a new revolution (maybe that changes tonight ). In the state Biden did well, turnout was excellent.
Record 2020 turnout, not votes.
I am trying to understand which democrat is getting citizens off their arses and showing up to vote. In the 3 states bernie won or came close, turnout was uninspiring. Which does not portend a Bernie revolution.
https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/election/article240801506.html
0 -
mrussel1 said:
Maybe.. or maybe this is precisely how campaigns go. You drop out when you're not tenable and then you throw the support to someone you believe in. Maybe you feel like you owe that to your supporters, to your party, and to your country. Maybe there's nothing actually nefarious about it.HughFreakingDillon said:
biden's camp may be to "blame" for this, not the DNC. maybe they knew they wouldn't be in it for the long haul, and his campaign is promising them positions if he wins,as I believe someone else mentioned a bit ago.Ledbetterman10 said:
It’s all seems pretty coordinated for them to drop out, and fly to Biden immediately to endorse him. Not that it matters to me. I’m not a Democrat. Their plan is their plan.mrussel1 said:
What evidence is there that it was the "party bosses" that are making it happen, rather than a realization that 1. they don't have the money to compete 2. There's no path to the nomination and 3. They believe Biden is the better choice, based on the clear alignment of policies.Ledbetterman10 said:
This isn’t a theory. It’s exactly what happened. If Amy or Pete were dropping out because of their showing in South Carolina, they would’ve done it either that night or early the next day.brianlux said:Amy and Pete both dropped out just before Super Tuesday. I have a theory about this. I think the party bosses for the DNC don't want Bernie to win the primaries and put the pressure on Pete and Amy to drop out so that Biden would capture more of their moderate votes. If that is true, it would bother me not because I am or am not for Bernie, but because it would bother me that this is more about manipulating of the system. I'm also unhappy because I voted by mail in ballot and Amy dropped out two days after I mailed in my ballot so it was a wasted vote. What a drag!
And they dropped out Sunday and Monday respectively. Is that really not fast enough to be considered a decision on the factors I outlined?
And who's our Boss Tweed?
I find it very interesting Obama called Pete AFTER Pete dropped out.
Suffice to say there were certainly calls to Pete that day before he dropped out saying now is the time to act and someone special is a fan of yours and will be calling you later if you take one for the team.0 -
But let me guess, you wouldn't uh-oh burn anything or think about burning anything if instead of Bernie in the pic was e.g. Verizons CEO?Halifax2TheMax said:Uh-oh, I might have to burn my Benaroya.
Wanting citizens to not die from not being able to afford health care because of prices set for the stockholders is scary stuff.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
No question about that.JimmyV said:
I don't know. I fully expect Biden to be in the lead tomorrow morning. We'll see.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
I'm not a Bernie guy. I'm a beat Trump guy. We'll see who wins where tonight. IMO, a frontrunner with a delegate lead padded by red states won't help us much in the fall.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
Democrats win when the base is energized. Whether they live in a state they have a chance to win like NC, or one where the odds are low like SC. That's why turnout is such an important indicator and was at record levels in SC and that's why the party went to bat for Biden. He got better turnout than obama.
I know we disagreed on this before SC, but to me it seems fairly logical. In the 3 states bernie did well, turnout was nothing special, which is ample evidence the millenials are not about to set records for a new revolution (maybe that changes tonight ). In the state Biden did well, turnout was excellent.
We are looking for indicators as to who is energized to vote, but SC is not entirely a lost cause.
The 2018 SC governor race was only 54-46. And obama lost there by a similar margin 10 years earlier. Didnt the dems just flip a congressional seat there?
There are plenty of reasons to stay competitive in SC. It might not be that far behind another southern state, TX. It used to be +20 R. Now its +5R and O'Rourke lost by less than 3.
I agree Bernie is the favorite to pull ahead tonight mostly from CA. But are the demographics there representative of who needs to turn out in swing states to give the dems the advantage?
And what would a slight lead for Bernie do?
Bernie is DC trying to make Justice League happen while Marvel is rolling out Avengers after Avengers. The bern has passed.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
mrussel1 said:
To be clear, I'm not accusing you of racism. In my world, there's a regulatory saying "it's not intent it's effect". In other words, pushing red states to the back isn't intended to cost AA community their voice in the primaries, but the effect would be there.JimmyV said:
That was my point and has been my opinion for years, and was mentioned on this board and debated by you a few days ago. No where have I advocated for states to not have primaries or have a voice. I have argued that South Carolina shouldn't be trumpeted as an indicator of where the Democratic base is, nor should it be shaping the Democratic race. You can continue to accuse me of racism for saying that, it will not change my opinion or stop me from voicing it.mrussel1 said:
That wasn't your point. Your point was that red states shouldn't get a vote, not that SC is too early in the process. That's a different argument. I'm all about a restructuring of the calendar. I'd also like to end all caucuses which I think are bad for lower socioeconomic voters. But that's all very different than telling certain states that they dont' get a voice at all.JimmyV said:
Seriously? This is what you are falling back on? C'mon, man. You are better than this.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so everyone gets a primary but SC. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Maybe we can put all the white states first, and then let the blacks vote at the end too, since the most AA heavy states are in the South, which are red.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
You're on one state. What about AZ, VA, CO, NV, NM, all of which had flipped. Sorry, I think most of us in teh party want to hear the voices of all of our members, not just the ones that you believe are important.JimmyV said:
South Carolina has had the same voice since 1980 when its primary began, yet it has been a red state going on 45 years. You let me know when that changes.mrussel1 said:
the states are red until they aren't. Would NH have voted Democrat in 2004 if they weren't allowed a voice in the primary? Your argument is yes, they would. You have no evidence that it's true.JimmyV said:
NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.
My point remains. Having SC vote third and treating it as some sort of bellwether for the Democratic base are both mistakes.
Second, perhaps we've been talking past each other because this whole argument, I have had the lens that you were arguing that only blue and purple states should get a primary. Not that you are saying that SC should be later in the process.
I get Js point. It's frustrating seeing these R states go first. Just because a state is R doesnt mean we cannot look at what its voters do as an indicator to other states.
The base probably will vote and turn out similar in different states. I cant prove that. But looking to Obama and Bill, the base was energized throughout the country.
Now we know Hilary lost bc the base did not turn out in 3 cities- Philly Detroit & Milwaukee.
Some of that was due to her being a poor candidate, but we dont know how significant the impact of Shelby v. Holder was. These states were controlled by Rs at the time and they did not pass those laws for no reason.0 -
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
-
wow I didn't realize this stat and more importantly why South Carolina matters.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/opinions/biden-is-trumps-contrast-not-sanders-avlon/index.htmlAfter losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, Biden won every county in South Carolina. Every. Single. One. Amid massive turnout, he got more than 260,000 votes -- nearly two-and-a-half times more than Sanders, who came in second with over 105,000.To put this in perspective, Biden won more votes in South Carolina than Sanders won in the first three states combined.In fact, while Sanders leads in delegates, Biden has actually won more votes in the Democratic contest to date.
Not only was South Carolina far more diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire, it was the most representative of the overall Democratic Party.In terms of ideology, 19% of SC primary voters described themselves as very liberal, 30% as somewhat liberal, 41% are moderates and 9% call themselves conservative.This is broadly in line with a 2019 Pew analysis of the Democratic Party by ideology.. Biden's landslide was so large, he won all the ideological groups across the board.African-Americans made up a majority of the South Carolina primary electorate, and Biden won 61% of the black vote -- thanks in part to Representative Jim Clyburn's decisive endorsement -- while Sanders carried just 17%.But Biden cleaned up across almost all demographics -- winning men and women, veterans and independents as well as first-time voters. Biden won urban, suburban and rural voters. While Sanders carried voters under 30, people who said they never attended church and non-college educated white men (white women without a college degree went for Biden).Post edited by mcgruff10 onI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
You're conflating legality with a complete lack of understanding of how our political system worksSpiritual_Chaos said:CM189191 said:
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Sounds like a highly democratic thing to do.CM189191 said:
"Get yourself some more parties."Spiritual_Chaos said:
What am I not grasping?CM189191 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:CM189191 said:josevolution said:So will most of you vote for who ever comes out of the Democrats or just not vote or vote for the Baffoon?
I wish that were the case Jose.
Unfortunately I'm concerned there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't understand we have a two-party system.
They'll get distracted by shiny objects like Tulsi or Bernie or Stein, and piss their vote away because they don't understand the fundamentals of how our government works.
Get yourself some more parties.
Biden will win by people not wanting Trump. But he will not get one punch in on Trump the whole race.
See what I mean @josevolution ? The complete inability to grasp basic American political concepts.
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. People who didn't understand this during the last election cost us 2 SCJ & numerous Federal Court appointments, that will take a whole fucking generation to fix.
We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way. We never were.
Two parties is awfully close to one party.
We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
Again, this is grade school level civics class
The US is not a direct or pure democracy
It is a constitutional republic
So, what in your constitutional republic with your three branches of government stops Monica, who has 3 apples, from, in theory, starting a party, getting a lot of traction and, a strong organization and trying to run for Senator, or congressperson or President for her newly started party?
What makes it illegal to do so - if you are not part of the republican party or the democratic party?
I missed that in my grade school level civics class. So sorry about that.
And if it is somehow ilmpossible then my point stands -- Get yourself some more parties.
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
But that's not what's happening here is it? There is no grass roots movement to elect democratic socialists at the local level. There is no party, no traction, no organization. No Senators, Representatives, not so much as a lowly dog-catcher. Except for one person trying to hijack the existing party, and then complaining when the powers that be toss him out on his ass.
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
0 -
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?CM189191 said:
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.CM189191 said:
But that's not what's happening here is it? There is no grass roots movement to elect democratic socialists at the local level. There is no party, no traction, no organization. No Senators, Representatives, not so much as a lowly dog-catcher.
Who in here said that was happening (here)?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
It's Mikes party and he cries when he himself wants to
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I'm okay with that point as well. But when I go back to the beginning, I did not until the very end, interpret the discussion as being a reallocation of the calendar.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
To be clear, I'm not accusing you of racism. In my world, there's a regulatory saying "it's not intent it's effect". In other words, pushing red states to the back isn't intended to cost AA community their voice in the primaries, but the effect would be there.JimmyV said:
That was my point and has been my opinion for years, and was mentioned on this board and debated by you a few days ago. No where have I advocated for states to not have primaries or have a voice. I have argued that South Carolina shouldn't be trumpeted as an indicator of where the Democratic base is, nor should it be shaping the Democratic race. You can continue to accuse me of racism for saying that, it will not change my opinion or stop me from voicing it.mrussel1 said:
That wasn't your point. Your point was that red states shouldn't get a vote, not that SC is too early in the process. That's a different argument. I'm all about a restructuring of the calendar. I'd also like to end all caucuses which I think are bad for lower socioeconomic voters. But that's all very different than telling certain states that they dont' get a voice at all.JimmyV said:
Seriously? This is what you are falling back on? C'mon, man. You are better than this.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so everyone gets a primary but SC. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Maybe we can put all the white states first, and then let the blacks vote at the end too, since the most AA heavy states are in the South, which are red.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
You're on one state. What about AZ, VA, CO, NV, NM, all of which had flipped. Sorry, I think most of us in teh party want to hear the voices of all of our members, not just the ones that you believe are important.JimmyV said:
South Carolina has had the same voice since 1980 when its primary began, yet it has been a red state going on 45 years. You let me know when that changes.mrussel1 said:
the states are red until they aren't. Would NH have voted Democrat in 2004 if they weren't allowed a voice in the primary? Your argument is yes, they would. You have no evidence that it's true.JimmyV said:
NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.mrussel1 said:
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.JimmyV said:
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.mrussel1 said:
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.JimmyV said:
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?mrussel1 said:
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.JimmyV said:The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
VirginiaWouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.
My point remains. Having SC vote third and treating it as some sort of bellwether for the Democratic base are both mistakes.
Second, perhaps we've been talking past each other because this whole argument, I have had the lens that you were arguing that only blue and purple states should get a primary. Not that you are saying that SC should be later in the process.
I get Js point. It's frustrating seeing these R states go first. Just because a state is R doesnt mean we cannot look at what its voters do as an indicator to other states.
The base probably will vote and turn out similar in different states. I cant prove that. But looking to Obama and Bill, the base was energized throughout the country.
Now we know Hilary lost bc the base did not turn out in 3 cities- Philly Detroit & Milwaukee.
Some of that was due to her being a poor candidate, but we dont know how significant the impact of Shelby v. Holder was. These states were controlled by Rs at the time and they did not pass those laws for no reason.0 -
Yes, while it wasn't 50+1%, it was a thumping.mcgruff10 said:wow I didn't realize this stat and more importantly why South Carolina matters.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/opinions/biden-is-trumps-contrast-not-sanders-avlon/index.htmlAfter losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, Biden won every county in South Carolina. Every. Single. One. Amid massive turnout, he got more than 260,000 votes -- nearly two-and-a-half times more than Sanders, who came in second with over 105,000.To put this in perspective, Biden won more votes in South Carolina than Sanders won in the first three states combined.In fact, while Sanders leads in delegates, Biden has actually won more votes in the Democratic contest to date.
Not only was South Carolina far more diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire, it was the most representative of the overall Democratic Party.In terms of ideology, 19% of SC primary voters described themselves as very liberal, 30% as somewhat liberal, 41% are moderates and 9% call themselves conservative.This is broadly in line with a 2019 Pew analysis of the Democratic Party by ideology.. Biden's landslide was so large, he won all the ideological groups across the board.African-Americans made up a majority of the South Carolina primary electorate, and Biden won 61% of the black vote -- thanks in part to Representative Jim Clyburn's decisive endorsement -- while Sanders carried just 17%.But Biden cleaned up across almost all demographics -- winning men and women, veterans and independents as well as first-time voters. Biden won urban, suburban and rural voters. While Sanders carried voters under 30, people who said they never attended church and non-college educated white men (white women without a college degree went for Biden).0 -
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
https://youtu.be/o6tz9pga4H4This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help