ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , Democratic primaries , iowa caucus , political predictions , political speculation , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 7th February 2020, 10:19 AM   #241
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,993
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I skimmed the thread and did a search and didn't see this; apologies if it's repeated elsewhere. At least some of the chaos was caused by the tools at 4chan.

You should apologize for being the only one tool enough to drag this here. We all saw it but the fact that not even one juicy Putin-blame story emerged was kind of a red flag.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 7th February 2020 at 10:20 AM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 10:32 AM   #242
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,066
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I wonder if Sanders is worried about that at all.

After all, given the dedication of his support base, he should have his greatest strength in caucuses (where time commitments are a significant issue), as opposed to primaries (where it would favor candidates with broader but less dedicated support). And having probably the best name recognition, he should have been a clear winner. Instead, he's almost tied.

(And no, this is not a prediction that Sanders will lose, either the nomination or the general election. Just some idle speculation.)
I think he is quite worried about turnout in other states.

He figures as long as turnout is high, he will have the advantage in most states.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 10:36 AM   #243
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,066
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
So on top of whatever bizarre mechanism leads to those "SDE" units, there's some very lucky rounding involved to keep the impression that MayorCheat at least won in that category.
We don't need that nonsense in the Sanders side. Cut the bs.

I'm glad Sanders didn't take the CT bait from some journalists who brought up the Iowa incident.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 10:56 AM   #244
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,993
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
We don't need that nonsense in the Sanders side. Cut the bs.

I'm glad Sanders didn't take the CT bait from some journalists who brought up the Iowa incident.

MayorCheat is what the internet hive mind came up with due to the ridiculous machinations of the DNC. I've posted several articles with information you didn't hear in the junk news you allow into your living-room. You can ignore or pretend to ignore that, but what "the Sanders side" is you won't define. Remember that you aren't responsible for my posts and I'm not responsible for your posts.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 11:39 AM   #245
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,066
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
MayorCheat is what the internet hive mind came up with due to the ridiculous machinations of the DNC. I've posted several articles with information you didn't hear in the junk news you allow into your living-room. You can ignore or pretend to ignore that, but what "the Sanders side" is you won't define. Remember that you aren't responsible for my posts and I'm not responsible for your posts.
The hyperfocus and vilification of Pete Buttigieg is something that's emerged in progressive circles in the past year. Many of the prominent progressive hot takes make it seem as though they lived in South Bend and they know Pete personally. It's just sad. The danger there of course is it makes it a bit harder to take legitimate criticisms of Pete seriously.

But Pete and the Democratic establishment (whatever this means in the context of the Iowa caucus; the Des Moines Register isn't in on it) are hopelessly intertwined in our minds, so a barely tested app goes wrong, Iowa Dem officials scramble to match results and delay release, and everyone gets angry at Pete....for.....what exactly? Declaring victory? Everyone does that. It wasn't like he was 4th before the crash. They got mad at him for one of his supporters reporting that they couldn't see everyone on screen. Why though?

It'd be enough to stop there, but no, those other criticisms apparently didn't hit hard enough to satisfy their craving to get at Pete. We have to proclaim he CHEATED. Like I said, Bernie is too classy for some of his supporters.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 12:07 PM   #246
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
It'd be enough to stop there, but no, those other criticisms apparently didn't hit hard enough to satisfy their craving to get at Pete. We have to proclaim he CHEATED. Like I said, Bernie is too classy for some of his supporters.
Is it even possible at this point for Sanders to lose without his fan club claiming the process was rigged?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 12:11 PM   #247
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Is it even possible at this point for Sanders to lose without his fan club claiming the process was rigged?
Yeah, but only if the process isn't actually rigged. :P
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 12:16 PM   #248
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
I cannot even detect sarcasm anymore.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:05 PM   #249
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,168
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:34 PM   #250
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,863
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Is it even possible at this point for Sanders to lose without his fan club claiming the process was rigged?
No.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:38 PM   #251
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4,284
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
He's on the ballot as a Democrat.

Should any two people who list the same party on their filings be treated differently by the institutions that operate these elections?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:43 PM   #252
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,819
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
nearly 97 percent of precincts have reported their results.

Man this is a tight final quarter.

Pete Buttigieg 550 votes - 26.22%
Bernie Sanders 547 votes - 26.07%

according to Iowa public radio
I heard a radio snippet from Bernie: "Where I come from, the person who gets the most votes wins." He'll have trouble with the EC then. Caveat: I have made no attempt to understand how the Iowa caucus works.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:45 PM   #253
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,740
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
Shouldn't that be something for the voters to decide? As long as we're letting them vote on the matter?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:48 PM   #254
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,132
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Quote:
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
He's on the ballot as a Democrat.
True, he's currently/temporarily on the ballot as a Democrat.

Perhaps a better way to have stated it is "He's not a long-term democrat".

I don't know if I agree that it should be harder for him to become the nominee, but I can certainly understand the sentiment... long-term party members may not want to see their party 'hijacked' from the outside. "We built this party, and now this guy who doesn't want to associate with us wants to take over".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:48 PM   #255
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,819
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
We don't need that nonsense in the Sanders side. Cut the bs.

I'm glad Sanders didn't take the CT bait from some journalists who brought up the Iowa incident.
If the Dems were going to cheat I'm not sure their first choice would have been Buttigieg. But maybe I'm wrong.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:51 PM   #256
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 25,917
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Is it even possible at this point for Sanders to lose without his fan club claiming the process was rigged?
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
No.
With encouragement from Republicans. Trump is already claiming the caucus was rigged.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 01:58 PM   #257
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
If Sanders isn't a democrat, then are his supporters also not democrats? Would you be happier if he ran under a different party and took his voters support there?

I recall in 2016 a lot of anger directed towards Jill Stein and the Green Party as spoilers.

Complaining about spoilers and saying Sanders isn't a Democrat aren't consistent criticisms. You have to pick one. Would you rather Sanders ran as a Democrat or as a spoiler? I know many would prefer he just disappeared from the political stage, but that's just wishful thinking.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 7th February 2020 at 02:01 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 02:08 PM   #258
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Buttigieg is now surging in NH polling:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...new-hampshire/

(Boston Globe's website is paywalled, national review is quoting it)
Looks like Biden supporters are jumping ship to Pete.

This seems like a good thing for Bernie. Pete is poaching Biden's supporters, but it's not clear that he will have quite the same strong support among black voters in the South.

Fracturing the centrist wing vote is a win for Bernie. I've got my fingers crossed that Pete will take the lead as the leading centrist candidate, but some states will hold firm for Biden, making neither viable.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 02:09 PM   #259
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,132
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
If Sanders isn't a democrat, then are his supporters also not democrats?
Not really sure why you think one statement (Sanders isn't a democrat) automatically leads to the other (supporters not democrats). Its certainly possible for some democratic supporters to thrown their support behind an "outsider".
Quote:
Would you be happier if he ran under a different party and took his voters support there?
I guess the question is, if he wasn't co-opting the machinery of the democratic party, would he even get enough support to become a spoiler?

I don't think he was a 'big name' prior to his 2016 election run, and its not like he had the financial resources to 'buy' his way into spotlight (a la Ross Perot).

Maybe if Sanders ran as an independent (or for some 3rd party ticket) he might have ended up siphoning off some support from Clinton. On the other hand, he might have also siphoned off some of the 'BernieBros' who migrated to Trump. (Plus, without the prolonged Clinton/Sanders battle, perhaps the Democrats would have been better focused on Trump.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 02:10 PM   #260
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I've got my fingers crossed that Pete will take the lead as the leading centrist candidate, but some states will hold firm for Biden, making neither viable.
Careful what you wish for, "No one" is surging over at 538.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...mary-forecast/
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 02:12 PM   #261
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Not really sure why you think one statement (Sanders isn't a democrat) automatically leads to the other (supporters not democrats). Its certainly possible for some democratic supporters to thrown their support behind an "outsider".

I guess the question is, if he wasn't co-opting the machinery of the democratic party, would he even get enough support to become a spoiler?

I don't think he was a 'big name' prior to his 2016 election run, and its not like he had the financial resources to 'buy' his way into spotlight (a la Ross Perot).

Maybe if Sanders ran as an independent (or for some 3rd party ticket) he might have ended up siphoning off some support from Clinton. On the other hand, he might have also siphoned off some of the 'BernieBros' who migrated to Trump. (Plus, without the prolonged Clinton/Sanders battle, perhaps the Democrats would have been better focused on Trump.)
My point is this. What does it mean to be a Democrat?

Bernie is running as a Democrat and getting lots of support from Democratic primary voters.

So yeah, if being a Democrat means getting the blessing of the DNC elites, then Bernie isn't a Democrat.

If being a Democrat means people in that party turn out to vote for him in large numbers, then he obviously is.

People saying "Bernie isn't a Democrat" would be more accurate in saying "Bernie isn't sanctioned by the party elite".

Who decides who is a real Democrat? Is it the primary voters who like Bernie, or the party establishment who don't?

WHen people say "Bernie isn't a Democrat" the implied statement is also "Democratic voters shouldn't vote for Bernie". Seems presumptuous to me.

As an example. Many people said that Trump wasn't a Republican. Obviously he is. He's more Republican than any other mainstream Republican he beat. The Republican voters were the final authority, not some party operative.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 7th February 2020 at 02:17 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 02:31 PM   #262
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,132
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
People saying "Bernie isn't a Democrat" would be more accurate in saying "Bernie isn't sanctioned by the party elite".
Uhhh... no. I think they're saying "taking out a membership makes you technically a democrat, but we don't believe you are really a democrat because you weren't one just a few months ago, and you probably won't be one in a few months from now if you should lose". Sanctioning by party elites has little to do with it.

Again, I don't think Sanders should be treated differently, but I can understand long-time Democrats being miffed at any outsider trying to take over.
Quote:
WHen people say "Bernie isn't a Democrat" the implied statement is also "Democratic voters shouldn't vote for Bernie". Seems presumptuous to me.
Why? If you're a long-term Democrat who has fought to keep the party in power for the past few decades, why shouldn't you be wary of someone who is going to step in at the last minute to co-opt your party for their own uses?

You have no idea if they will work with other Democrats. You have no idea if they will work towards whatever goals you have fought for over the past years.

Quote:
As an example. Many people said that Trump wasn't a Republican. Obviously he is. He's more Republican than any other mainstream Republican he beat. The Republican voters were the final authority, not some party operative.
Again, I never claimed that Sanders should be treated differently than any other candidate. I'm saying that individual democratic voters should consider whether 'an outsider' is worthy of support, and it would not be wrong to consider their status as an 'outsider' as a reason to vote against them.

And yes, Trump is a republican. And yes, he was an 'outsider' prior to the 2016 election. It would not have been wrong for an individual republican voter to look at him and say "do we really want someone from outside the party to take over?" If someone were actually interested in actual conservative principles, they should have been wary about giving the party reigns to Trump. (Of course, because they are completely corrupt it didn't really matter. But it could have.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 03:03 PM   #263
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
People saying "Bernie isn't a Democrat" would be more accurate in saying "Bernie isn't sanctioned by the party elite".
In his decades of public service, has he ever won any public office as a self-identified Democrat?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 03:12 PM   #264
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
If Sanders isn't a democrat, then are his supporters also not democrats? Would you be happier if he ran under a different party and took his voters support there?

I recall in 2016 a lot of anger directed towards Jill Stein and the Green Party as spoilers.

Complaining about spoilers and saying Sanders isn't a Democrat aren't consistent criticisms. You have to pick one. Would you rather Sanders ran as a Democrat or as a spoiler? I know many would prefer he just disappeared from the political stage, but that's just wishful thinking.
All I'm saying is that it makes sense for a party to want their candidates to actually be members of their party. To some degree, its generous of them to let him run at all. A rule to the effect of, "in order to stand for election as a R/D you must have been a registered R/D for x amount of time would be entirely reasonable. I wouldn't suggest it as a law, just an internal rule. Where it gets squirrely is that the US runs public elections for internal party decisions which is really quite strange.

Keep in mind, I'm probably not one of those folks who were complaining about spoilers. At least not last time. There's pretty good arguments for Nader and Perot when they ran though. As a rule, I encourage third parties.

I'm curious, is bernie even currently registered as a democrat?

Last edited by ahhell; 7th February 2020 at 03:18 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 03:19 PM   #265
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,292
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
All I'm saying is that it makes sense for a party to want their candidates to actually be members of their party. To some degree, its generous of them to let him run at all. A rule to the effect of, "in order to stand for election as a R/D you must have been a registered R/D for x amount of time would be entirely reasonable. I wouldn't suggest it as a law, just an internal rule. Where it gets squirrely is that the US runs public elections for internal party decisions which is really quite strange.

Keep in mind, I'm probably not one of those folks who were complaining about spoilers. At least not last time. There's pretty good arguments for Nader and Perot when they ran though. As a rule, I encourage third parties.
Again, would they rather Sanders run third party?

We have a two party system. That cuts both ways. The party has to be open to outsiders because otherwise outsiders might run as third parties and poach their vote.

Sanders is a candidate that is pulling tremendous support in the primary.

Excluding Sanders means excluding some percentage of his supporters who would go with him to third party.

The Democratic party has a choice. Excluding a popular candidate means resigning itself to non-viability.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 7th February 2020 at 03:24 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 05:22 PM   #266
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4,284
Parties have to let those qualified to run* do so because we all have the right to participate in the political process.

There may be other ones, but that's the big one.

*citizenship, age, residency, etc.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 05:29 PM   #267
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Parties have to let those qualified to run do so because we all have the right to participate in the political process.
I don't think they really do, though.

Are you talking about a legal or moral requirement, here?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 05:58 PM   #268
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4,284
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't think they really do, though.

Are you talking about a legal or moral requirement, here?
It's a foundational requirement for a functioning democracy.

Allowing parties to be gatekeepers of who is or is not allowed to participate would just be outsourcing the suppression of that right.

I'm not for it.

If you don't like someone not declaring allegiance to a specific political cabal, express so by not voting for them.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 06:04 PM   #269
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,497
Okay, what Iowa did was stupid, in at least two ways;

First, they didn't consider the users. I've always that Steve Jobs "genius" was not in tech (that was Steve Wozniak, look it up), it was in the UI, and in presentation.

Second, they didn't stress test their system. Apparently at the moment, they didn't test it at all. The Iowa dems are absurd. And again, don't mean the people, I mean the party...

look

In the long term, I doubt this Iowa mess will make a difference, but it's the sort of mistake that we should all be wary of, not just in elections, but just living generally.

I don't know what will get rid of the idiot in the White House or more importantly what will get rid of Moscow Mitch in the senate. That's for dems in Kentucky to decide.

What I know is, the UI is messed up, to underlying problems. The GOP as is stands now, is a group of radical authoritarians, white wing white nationalists., And we should protect our constitutional rights against them. If it means tossing out a justice on the Supreme Court, or a senator or three, then...do it. Our basic rights are in danger.

It's time to destroy th GOP as it exist today.

You may see this as terifying, but it's really just a nod to reality.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 06:46 PM   #270
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It's a foundational requirement for a functioning democracy.
Do you believe the UK lets just anyone run for head of their parties?

(...or are they not a functional democracy?)
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 07:03 PM   #271
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4,284
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Do you believe the UK lets just anyone run for head of their parties?

(...or are they not a functional democracy?)
I said nothing about picking the head of a party. I'm speaking of controlling who gets to appear on the ballot. I don't know that sitting Presidents in the U.S. have ever tended to concurrently serve as chair of their national party. Doesn't seem so in my lifetime, anyways. It's usually a mix of House and Senate leadership, some prominent state-level personnel moving up, bundlers, etc.

Yes, I know they are cited as such, but that's colloquial, or as a figurehead.

At the end of the day, his legislative affairs department would identify the party and underlying caucuses that are more or less of favorable disposition and the party and caucuses that will be the other thing.

Like all Presidents.

Even with supermajority numbers from the same party, Presidents can run into sub-committee bloat and delays. Everyone needs certain assurances. Or at least they need to wring their hands on TV for a minute until, oh, there's a check from a contributor in the leadership PAC account, ok, nevermind.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 07:49 PM   #272
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,905
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I said nothing about picking the head of a party. I'm speaking of controlling who gets to appear on the ballot.
Do you believe the Labour Party or the Tories pick a Prime minister based on nationwide popular balloting?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 10:16 AM   #273
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4,284
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Do you believe the Labour Party or the Tories pick a Prime minister based on nationwide popular balloting?
No.

Neither is the comparison so straightforward. The arrangement of leadership in parliamentary parties is a lot more of the calculus of voting, see: Labour. Parties can become internally fractious, despite plurality or majority numbers, see: Tories.

Plus you have equivalent bodies to those I referred to in pointing out where party control actually resides. Labour calls Corbyn their leader, but they have a National Executive Committee with a Chair. Sometimes they are an MP (or MEP), sometimes not. Then there's the "party chair", a fancy title until recently given more of a coordinating role for election strategy.

The parties can put whoever they want in those committees, I agree to that much. But final say on head of state, executive power, what-have-you, should lean more towards people's will than party's will. It's a feature of PM models I find questionable. Perhaps easily fixed with a recall mechanism of some kind. YMMV.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 8th February 2020 at 10:17 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 05:50 PM   #274
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,132
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Again, would they rather Sanders run third party?
...
Sanders is a candidate that is pulling tremendous support in the primary.

Excluding Sanders means excluding some percentage of his supporters who would go with him to third party.
I have previously given multiple reasons why a 3rd party or independent candidacy for Sanders would not be a significant threat to the Democrats.

To reiterate:

- Without his (temporary) association with the Democrats, Sanders would not have a significant national profile. He was an independent senator from a relatively small state, and unlike (for example) Ross Perot, he wouldn't be able to self-fund any part of his campaign. I suspect most people probably couldn't pick him out of a lineup prior to the 2016 primaries. So if he ran as a 3rd party candidate, he wouldn't be contending for the presidency end up being a spoiler, he'd end up as the answer to a question on Jeopardy under the 'political losers' category

- Lets say he actually did manage to get some attention nationally.... Yes, Sanders might have stolen some votes from Clinton. But remember, a lot of BernieBros ended up voting for Trump. If Sanders was running as a 3rd party candidate, he would also be taking votes away from the Republicans, so Clinton still might have won the popular vote

- Without Sanders in the race, the democratic primary would have likely gone a lot smother. Hillary probably would have clinched the nomination weeks earlier, cutting out much of the bitter primary battles and allowing the Democrats to focus on Trump much earlier. And without the whole "poor bernie was cheated" myth going around, perhaps Clinton might not have been tarred with the 'elitist' label
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 06:06 PM   #275
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,275
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
But remember, a lot of BernieBros ended up voting for Trump.
Mmm, depends on what "a lot" means.

Quote:
Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election.

...

A more important caveat, perhaps, is that other statistics suggest that this level of "defection" isn't all that out of the ordinary. Believing that all those Sanders voters somehow should have been expected to not vote for Trump may be to misunderstand how primary voters behave.

For example, Schaffner tells NPR that around 12 percent of Republican primary voters (including 34 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich voters and 11 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio voters) ended up voting for Clinton. And according to one 2008 study, around 25 percent of Clinton primary voters in that election ended up voting for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general. (In addition, the data showed 13 percent of McCain primary voters ended up voting for Obama, and 9 percent of Obama voters ended up voting for McCain perhaps signaling something that swayed voters between primaries and the general election, or some amount of error in the data, or both.)
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 06:08 PM   #276
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,132
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It's a foundational requirement for a functioning democracy.

Allowing parties to be gatekeepers of who is or is not allowed to participate would just be outsourcing the suppression of that right.

I'm not for it.

If you don't like someone not declaring allegiance to a specific political cabal, express so by not voting for them.
Uh, no. If a political party instituted a rule that said "You must be a member of the party for at least 1 year prior to joining the primary" that would not be a suppression of the right to join in the elections.

1) An individual wanting to participate but who wasn't a long-time Democrate still has the option of running as an independent and/or for another party

2) The act of taking on a membership and holding it for a certain time period is not a significant barrier for participation. It is not discriminatory (i.e. does not target a person's gender, race, religion, etc.) and I'm pretty sure a party membership would be affordable to even a poor candidate. If Sanders wanted to participate under such a rule, he has an easy out: Get a membership and hold on to it.

And lets face it, you are complaining about the requirements to hold a party membership as somehow an excessive burden. Yet in order to run in the primaries candidates often have to pay various filing fees. And to participate in debates they have to show a certain level of funding and/or support. In theory those requirements can prevent a poor person from running for election. That seems like it is just as much of a problem as a candidate maintaining a party membership, but its seen as acceptable requirement.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 06:33 PM   #277
Cabbage
Master Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I have previously given multiple reasons why a 3rd party or independent candidacy for Sanders would not be a significant threat to the Democrats.

To reiterate:

- Without his (temporary) association with the Democrats, Sanders would not have a significant national profile. He was an independent senator from a relatively small state, and unlike (for example) Ross Perot, he wouldn't be able to self-fund any part of his campaign. I suspect most people probably couldn't pick him out of a lineup prior to the 2016 primaries. So if he ran as a 3rd party candidate, he wouldn't be contending for the presidency end up being a spoiler, he'd end up as the answer to a question on Jeopardy under the 'political losers' category

- Lets say he actually did manage to get some attention nationally.... Yes, Sanders might have stolen some votes from Clinton. But remember, a lot of BernieBros ended up voting for Trump. If Sanders was running as a 3rd party candidate, he would also be taking votes away from the Republicans, so Clinton still might have won the popular vote

- Without Sanders in the race, the democratic primary would have likely gone a lot smother. Hillary probably would have clinched the nomination weeks earlier, cutting out much of the bitter primary battles and allowing the Democrats to focus on Trump much earlier. And without the whole "poor bernie was cheated" myth going around, perhaps Clinton might not have been tarred with the 'elitist' label

This was probably all true back in 2015, yes. It certainly does not apply if Sanders were to suddenly abandon his "Democrat" label and run as a 3rd party candidate at this point.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 06:40 PM   #278
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,844
Looks like Diamond Joe is likely headed to another 4th-place finish in New Hampshire (possibly 3rd place).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...new-hampshire/

Probably: Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, Biden, Klobuchar.

Or see here for lots of recent polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

One poll actually has Buttigieg in the lead (barely), but most have Sanders. All show Biden nose-diving.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 8th February 2020 at 06:42 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 06:45 PM   #279
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,132
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
This was probably all true back in 2015, yes. It certainly does not apply if Sanders were to suddenly abandon his "Democrat" label and run as a 3rd party candidate at this point.
True, things would be different now if Sanders were to run as a 3rd party candidate in 2020. But the discussion seems to be "what if candidates had to be long-term members of the party". If that was a rule, I suspect it would have been in place back in 2016.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2020, 06:54 PM   #280
Cabbage
Master Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
True, things would be different now if Sanders were to run as a 3rd party candidate in 2020. But the discussion seems to be "what if candidates had to be long-term members of the party". If that was a rule, I suspect it would have been in place back in 2016.

Not necessarily. I think 2016 is more likely to inspire such a decision instead of being subject to such a decision. I can't think of any event in the past 50 years that would be more likely to inspire a "candidates had to be long-term members of the party" rule than the 2016 primaries.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.