The Democratic Presidential Debates

CM189191

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

Spiritual_Chaos

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

So what happens?

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

So what happens?

Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  

CM189191

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)?

This was your hypothetical, you said this: 

"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?"

So again, you're conflating legality with a complete lack of understanding of how our political system works

Let's use a simple analogy to help drive home the point:
There's nothing illegal about drinking bleach to stop coronavirus.  I will go so far as to agree that if you drink enough bleach, you will absolutely eventually rid yourself of coronavirus.  But it's not illegal, it's just incredibly stupid and reflects a complete lack of understanding of bleach, coronavirus, and your immune system works.  By all means, please drink all the bleach you want.

what dreams

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

And let's add:  there is no Congress AND Senate. Congress is made up of two legislative bodies -- a House of Representatives and a Senate. My trigger is when people call the House Congress. 

Spiritual_Chaos

what dreams said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

And let's add:  there is no Congress AND Senate. Congress is made up of two legislative bodies -- a House of Representatives and a Senate. My trigger is when people call the House Congress. 

I bet it is like when people use DE and DEM wrong over here. One advice if you come over for the Pearl Jam show at Lollapalooza - do not make that mistake.

pjl44

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

The Libertarian Presidential candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states and they will run candidates in many, many races across the country. Other than winning some local races, they just haven't gathered much traction. Same with the Greens. SC's scenario could certainly happen; it's not likely but it's most possible with a party that has an existing infrastructure. 

Democratic Socialists have chosen to try and take hold of the Democratic Party rather than start their own party. Strategic choice, although an uphill battle either way.

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

So what happens?

Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  

I don't see anything here that disputes my original post:

Get yourself some more parties.

Seems to be very much theoretically possible to get yourself some more parties. And switch things up. Even on the highest level.

#democracyfuckyeah

CM189191

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

The Libertarian Presidential candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states and they will run candidates in many, many races across the country. Other than winning some local races, they just haven't gathered much traction. Same with the Greens. SC's scenario could certainly happen; it's not likely but it's most possible with a party that has an existing infrastructure. 

Democratic Socialists have chosen to try and take hold of the Democratic Party rather than start their own party. Strategic choice, although an uphill battle either way.

America Isn’t Really Set Up For Third-Party Presidential Bids

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/america-isnt-really-set-up-for-third-party-presidential-bids/

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

So what happens?

Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  

I don't see anything here that disputes my original post:

Get yourself some more parties.

Seems to be very much theoretically possible to get yourself some more parties. And switch things up. Even on the highest level.

#democracyfuckyeah

I don't know what that argument is all about, was busy having my own.  But I don't think having each election settled in the HOR is desirable.  Do you?

Halifax2TheMax

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Uh-oh, I might have to burn my Benaroya.

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?

Wanting citizens to not die from not being able to afford health care because of prices set for the stockholders is scary stuff. 

Why would I do that? I like my Verizon. Most dependable cell service I’ve ever had. Now, if it were the CEO of ticketbastard?! Bernie guarantees four more years of Team Trump Treason. SC tells us so.

pjl44

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

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?

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.  

The Libertarian Presidential candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states and they will run candidates in many, many races across the country. Other than winning some local races, they just haven't gathered much traction. Same with the Greens. SC's scenario could certainly happen; it's not likely but it's most possible with a party that has an existing infrastructure. 

Democratic Socialists have chosen to try and take hold of the Democratic Party rather than start their own party. Strategic choice, although an uphill battle either way.

America Isn’t Really Set Up For Third-Party Presidential Bids

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/america-isnt-really-set-up-for-third-party-presidential-bids/

I point out the broad strokes of that article in my post. That headline and your answer to SC are bad, especially if you're an American trying to have a discussion with a Swede.

pjl44

Gary Johnson picked up 4.5 million votes in his 2016 Presidential bid. Nowhere near enough to win, but that's significant and a lot of people marking the box.

CM189191

pjl44 said:

Gary Johnson picked up 4.5 million votes in his 2016 Presidential bid. Nowhere near enough to win, but that's significant and a lot of people marking the box.

"Nowhere near enough to win, but that's significant"

go look up the word significant, read that out loud to yourself, and tell me it still makes sense 

Spiritual_Chaos

https://twitter.com/nickmc95/status/1234964117724766208?s=20

Obvious mistake..... I... gues....... but still.

mcgruff10

Serious question that remains unanswered: why is Bernie Sanders allowed to run as a democrat when he is not a democrat? 

Lerxst1992

Spiritual_Chaos said:

JimmyV said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

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
Virginia

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.  

Wouldn'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.)

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.  

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?

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.  

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. 

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.  

Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV.  So she won at least half of the swing states.  

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.   

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.  

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 don't know. I fully expect Biden to be in the lead tomorrow morning. We'll see.

No question about that. 

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.

There is a question. Bernie is favored in CA & TX, and they are the 2 biggest states voting today

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

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.html

After 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).

Yes, while it wasn't 50+1%, it was a thumping.  

This is similar to what I've been saying. To add to the turnout issue in SC and SC is more if a bellwether than the other early states, bernie got a poor turnout in the states he finished at or near the top. That should be a warning to bernie. 

The DNC is not solely looking at who won, but how they won and what the demos were.

Spiritual_Chaos

mcgruff10 said:

Serious question that remains unanswered: why is Bernie Sanders allowed to run as a democrat when he is not a democrat? 

The DNC mandated that every candidate running for president in 2020 "affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they: A. are a member of the Democratic Party; B. will accept the Democratic nomination; and C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party."
Sanders signed this affirmation document. (You can see it here.) He also filled out official paperwork with the Federal Election Commission stating that he was running for president as a Democrat. The DNC told PolitiFact that every other candidate who ran for the nomination signed it as well.
Sanders "is recognized as a candidate for the Democratic nomination because the national party acknowledges him as one of the candidates," said Josh Putnam, a political scientist who specializes in delegate selection rules. As a practical matter, Putnam said, the Democratic Party was in something of a box for 2020, since it had already allowed him to run in 2016. The party "certainly couldn't or wouldn't backtrack on that now," he said.

Doesn't seem unanswered?

Spiritual_Chaos

So...

Texas really is...

red..?

https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/1234979940023463937?s=20