2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III - Page 4

acbytesla · 3rd January 2020, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Biden said we're all dead if we don't get rid of fossil fuels and he's ready to put energy company execs in prison. LOL -- and this is the Dems' leading candidate. I wonder if he'll lock up his son first, for his crime of having been on the board of an energy company. In any case, I'm sure AOC is a lock to be his Secretary of Energy if he somehow gets elected.

Something tells me you're taking whatever he said out of context. In fact, I'd bet every penny I have that you are.

Still, the general consensus among scientists is that if man doesn't curtail the amount of C02 it emits into the atmosphere it is likely that global warming will cause huge population die offs that will likely include man. Is it possible that the planet could reverse that trend then? Possibly. But the concern is that there is a tipping point where it is impossible to keep our planet from becoming like Venus.

What I've never understood is why people deny science. Maybe you could enlighten me?

theprestige · 3rd January 2020, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Wanting a fairer system is most certainly not idealism, it's simple common sense.

I'm saying it's idealism to think of the party primaries as a platform to demonstrate better voting systems, or that this should be the party's priority.

And it's clearly not an ideal shared by any of the state party organizations, for either major party, ever.

Exhibit A: The Iowa caucuses.

acbytesla · 3rd January 2020, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm saying it's idealism to think of the party primaries as a platform to demonstrate better voting systems, or that this should be the party's priority.

And it's clearly not an ideal shared by any of the state party organizations, for either major party, ever.

Exhibit A: The Iowa caucuses.

We agree on something. That's a shock.

I've been thinking about something Prestige. I'd like to know what you think about it, Both Jefferson and Adams as well as other of the founders lamented the creation of political parties. I do too. I tend to believe it causes division where there is none or little.

We end up with a situation where the Majority leader or the Speaker prevent legislation that in itself might enjoy majority support just not of the respective party. For example, while you and I may disagree 80 percent of time why should we fight 100 percent of the time? Why can't we move forward where we share common ground. How can we resolve this impasse?

Cabbage · 3rd January 2020, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm saying it's idealism to think of the party primaries as a platform to demonstrate better voting systems, or that this should be the party's priority.

And it's clearly not an ideal shared by any of the state party organizations, for either major party, ever.

Exhibit A: The Iowa caucuses.

Oh, OK. I can agree with that.

theprestige · 3rd January 2020, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

We agree on something. That's a shock.

I've been thinking about something Prestige. I'd like to know what you think about it, Both Jefferson and Adams as well as other of the founders lamented the creation of political parties. I do to. I tend to believe it causes division where there is none or little.

I see it as being the other way around. Yes, tribalism has its drawbacks, but political parties are a symptom of divisions that already exist. I also think they're unavoidable. Like money and police, if we didn't have them the first think we'd do is invent them. If we outlawed them, like-minded people would just meet in secret to pool their resources and advance their policy agendas.

Political parties date back to at least the Roman Republic. They probably go back much further. They've been a feature of pretty much every Western democracy ever. I see them as a natural and unavoidable consequence of citizens being free to associate with each other and engage in political advocacy. As soon as you have two people disagreeing about policy, you have two political parties.

acbytesla · 3rd January 2020, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I see it as being the other way around. Yes, tribalism has its drawbacks, but political parties are a symptom of divisions that already exist. I also think they're unavoidable. Like money and police, if we didn't have them the first think we'd do is invent them. If we outlawed them, like-minded people would just meet in secret to pool their resources and advance their policy agendas.

Political parties date back to at least the Roman Republic. They probably go back much further. They've been a feature of pretty much every Western democracy ever. I see them as a natural and unavoidable consequence of citizens being free to associate with each other and engage in political advocacy. As soon as you have two people disagreeing about policy, you have two political parties.

You may be right that their formation my be a natural tendency, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an impediment to good government.

theprestige · 3rd January 2020, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You may be right that their formation my be a natural tendency, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an impediment to good government.

You go to govern with the humans you have, not the humans you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

The goal is to devise a form of government that's reasonably functional in spite of the fact that humans are imperfect and some of them are highly motivated douchebags. The western parliamentary and federal systems do a pretty good job of this.

Soviet Communism tried the other thing: Aspirational government that would produce the perfect humans it wished to have, by fiat and force. We all know how that turned out.

acbytesla · 3rd January 2020, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

You go to govern with the humans you have, not the humans you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

The goal is to devise a form of government that's reasonably functional in spite of the fact that humans are imperfect and some of them are highly motivated douchebags. The western parliamentary and federal systems do a pretty good job of this.

Soviet Communism tried the other thing: Aspirational government that would produce the perfect humans it wished to have, by fiat and force. We all know how that turned out.

I don't disagree with any of this. But that doesn't mean tweaking the system couldn't make our systems better. To say were stuck with the rules we have seems a bit defeatist.

SezMe · 3rd January 2020, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html

His withdrawal was always a matter of when, not if. But I share his complaint about Iowa and New Hampshire. Why do we (the USA) continue the idiocy of letting these two highly non-representative states play such a large role in our presidential election process? Iowa is especially suspect. They vote by a caucus that you have to physically attend to vote in the very middle of winter. If you tried, you'd have a hard time creating a worse process.

SezMe · 3rd January 2020, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

To this last point, being Indie has it's advantages. In my state I can vote in either the Dem or the GOP primary. In 2016 I voted in the GOP primary and in 2018 the Den primary. That way I can support who I think is the best candidate, rather than being limited to one party or another.

Oh, I quite agree. I'm an indie, in legal terms, a "Decline to State".

SezMe · 3rd January 2020, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

As opposed to the State of Minnesota limiting the GOP ballot to one name? But I don't care about the Iowa caucus. It amounts to about 1 percent of the total number of delegates.

Yes, but a waaaaaayyyy outsized importance in the nomination process.

SezMe · 3rd January 2020, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

The GOP has always been corrupt. Conservatism IS corrupt at its core.

Let me jump in before Zig reads this: That is a giant pant load.

theprestige · 3rd January 2020, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

How the parties run their own internal screening processes (I actually think calling me 'elections' and using associated terminology in reference to them is bad, although I get that it is the established and common way of doing it) is a red herring, it's not the problem.

If the GOP and Dems want to pick their candidate by double elimination poker tournaments, more power to them.

The problem is in an ingrained two party system enabled by first past the post voting that makes them the only viable candidates.

I agree with all of this, except perhaps the last paragraph, which I will have to give more thought.

SezMe · 3rd January 2020, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

We agree on something. That's a shock.

I've been thinking about something Prestige. I'd like to know what you think about it, Both Jefferson and Adams as well as other of the founders lamented the creation of political parties. I do too. I tend to believe it causes division where there is none or little.

We end up with a situation where the Majority leader or the Speaker prevent legislation that in itself might enjoy majority support just not of the respective party. For example, while you and I may disagree 80 percent of time why should we fight 100 percent of the time? Why can't we move forward where we share common ground. How can we resolve this impasse?

I don't see the aggregation of immense power in the hands of the Speaker or Majority Leader as side effects of a two-party system.

I agree that the two party system has a lot of negative side effects. But the only way to remedy that is to eliminate first-past-the-post vote counting in favor of ranked voting. I hope the Maine experiment serves as a model for the nation.

acbytesla · 3rd January 2020, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Yes, but a waaaaaayyyy outsized importance in the nomination process.

I'm a 100 percent convinced that Iowa and NH's importance is overemphasized. Bloomberg skipped them entirely and I just read he is in 3rd place in the polls. NH and Iowa combinet make up at most 3 percent of the delegates. I'm amazed that more candidates haven't come to the conclusion that there is a better way to win the nomination.

acbytesla · 3rd January 2020, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I don't see the aggregation of immense power in the hands of the Speaker or Majority Leader as side effects of a two-party system.

Really? Just look at what McConnell has done again and get back to me.

Brainster · 4th January 2020, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm a 100 percent convinced that Iowa and NH's importance is overemphasized. Bloomberg skipped them entirely and I just read he is in 3rd place in the polls. NH and Iowa combinet make up at most 3 percent of the delegates. I'm amazed that more candidates haven't come to the conclusion that there is a better way to win the nomination.

Yes, there is the other option of spending $200 million out of your own pocket on advertising.

SezMe · 4th January 2020, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Really? Just look at what McConnell has done again and get back to me.

I despise McConnell as much as you do but that's irrelevant to whether his power arises out of a two-party political system. If we had 3, 4 or even more viable national parties, the Majority Leader and Speaker of the House could, over time, aggregate as much power as they have in the current two-party system.

acbytesla · 4th January 2020, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I despise McConnell as much as you do but that's irrelevant to whether his power arises out of a two-party political system. If we had 3, 4 or even more viable national parties, the Majority Leader and Speaker of the House could, over time, aggregate as much power as they have in the current two-party system.

It is because of the party system that we have a "majority leader" . McConnell is blocking everything from the house just like he was wihen Obama was President. The party system screws up allegiances. Instead of working for the country, he is working on behalf of his party.

BobTheCoward · 5th January 2020, 06:09 AM

It is so bizarre that thebcandidate with the most experience for the job is in his thirties. I guess now it is Bloomberg.

BobTheCoward · 5th January 2020, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It is because of the party system that we have a "majority leader" . McConnell is blocking everything from the house just like he was wihen Obama was President. The party system screws up allegiances. Instead of working for the country, he is working on behalf of his party.

I bet he thought Obama's plans were bad for the country.

Mumbles · 5th January 2020, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I bet he thought Obama's plans were bad for the country.

That wouldn't explain why Moscow Mitch filibustered his own bill as soon as Obama said he'd sign it.

Mumbles · 5th January 2020, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I don't see the aggregation of immense power in the hands of the Speaker or Majority Leader as side effects of a two-party system.

House Speaker is an actual-constitutionally mandated position with a particular set of powers. Majority (and Minority) Leader positions exist solely as a function of the two party system.

BobTheCoward · 5th January 2020, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

That wouldn't explain why Moscow Mitch filibustered his own bill as soon as Obama said he'd sign it.

In 2011 when he proposed the idea it was part of resolving the debt ceiling deal. In 2012 when he out it out and filibustered it himself it was gamesmanship to resolve the issue.

In 2011, it was already a proposed compromise to resolve the debt crisis. That can hardly be described as a good idea. That is easily attributable to the least bad solution to the crisis that was at hand.

Trebuchet · 5th January 2020, 08:39 AM

My wife had someone on TV interviewing Warren while I was in the bathroom this morning. She was just repeating campaign talking points, sounding very well rehearsed, while evading actual questions. I wasn't impressed.

theprestige · 5th January 2020, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

My wife had someone on TV interviewing Warren while I was in the bathroom this morning. She was just repeating campaign talking points, sounding very well rehearsed, while evading actual questions. I wasn't impressed.

I noticed a long time ago that this is something politicians do. It's actually become a kind of "drinking game" for me, on the rare occasions that I watch a politician give an interview. How diligently do they stick to their program? How smoothly do they work the dodges? Etc. To the point where part of my "grade" for a politician is based on how well they manage the evasion. It sounds like Warren has been working on her technique. She's probably got a a good head for it, and a good coach.

Venom · 5th January 2020, 01:28 PM

I'm just as unimpressed by journalists who go up to politicans and ask them "hard questions" and expect them to answer a certain way on the spot.

In many ways it's better if we get to see a prepared speech on the stage, a townhall for ex, or in written form, but most voters I imagine don't want to read.

theprestige · 5th January 2020, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

I'm just as unimpressed by journalists who go up to politicans and ask them "hard questions" and expect them to answer a certain way on the spot.

In many ways it's better if we get to see a prepared speech on the stage, a townhall for ex, or in written form, but most voters I imagine don't want to read.

There's very little reward, and huge risk, for a politician to speak extemporaneously and on the record. It's much safer - and much more effective - to turn every line of questioning back to their prepared remarks. Even when the dodge is transparent or clumsy, it's still better than trying to craft a suitable response to whatever the question was, in real time.

Aridas · 5th January 2020, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

There's very little reward, and huge risk, for a politician to speak extemporaneously and on the record. It's much safer - and much more effective - to turn every line of questioning back to their prepared remarks. Even when the dodge is transparent or clumsy, it's still better than trying to craft a suitable response to whatever the question was, in real time.

There's also the matter of wanting people to remember specific things about what Warren's aiming for, and repeating those things is a main way to get out the message. Going a little further, a number of the complaints about Warren's evasiveness during the campaign have basically been... "Why isn't Warren indulging GOP narrative and instead is focusing on pushing a distinctly more correct narrative that is also much more favorable to her plans?" The sheer number of those have ended up making me much less sympathetic to that particular complaint.

Donal · 6th January 2020, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

My wife had someone on TV interviewing Warren while I was in the bathroom this morning. She was just repeating campaign talking points, sounding very well rehearsed, while evading actual questions. I wasn't impressed.

Was it a scheduled sit down interview with questions that could have reasonable been expected? If yes, ya, I agree, lame.

If not, I don't blame anyone for falling back to talking points. I much prefer well thought out answers than off the cuff remarks.

Donal · 6th January 2020, 08:57 AM

Castro just endorsed Warren, fueling even more speculation of him as her VP pick. He's Latino, from a currently red state that might go purple in the near future, young, and has credibility with DNC leadership. He is also very outspoken on issues like justice reform and immigration. He can remind people of 2008 Obama without having all the baggage like Biden.

theprestige · 6th January 2020, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Donal

Castro just endorsed Warren, fueling even more speculation of him as her VP pick. He's Latino, from a currently red state that might go purple in the near future, young, and has credibility with DNC leadership. He is also very outspoken on issues like justice reform and immigration. He can remind people of 2008 Obama without having all the baggage like Biden.

If he reminded people of 2008 Obama, he'd be getting ready to crush Biden in Iowa, instead of dropping out of the race because Iowans aren't ready for a nominee of color.

Tero · 6th January 2020, 09:31 AM

As far as Warren goes, when she starts a reply with "so...." you know she is not going to answer it. She will give a lecture on a related topic or recite an incident.

This is why I like Klobuchar as a person more from the beginning. I did not always agree with her solution. But all of them were realistic, in a 2 party system.

Donal · 6th January 2020, 10:07 AM

I know too many MidWesterners to like Klobuchar. People keep mistaking their passive aggressive dismissals for politeness.

Trebuchet · 6th January 2020, 10:43 AM

I find myself kind of liking Steyer. Which means nothing other than that his commercials are more effective with me than Bloomberg's. I haven't seen any from anyone else.

Brainster · 6th January 2020, 11:48 AM

Here's a fairly long piece on how Bloomberg is upending the race:

Quote:

The Iowa field is bunched together with little daylight between a handful of well-funded candidates. Each of the four early voting states continues to present the prospect of a different winner. And, at the end of that gauntlet on Super Tuesday, a free-spending billionaire — Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor — is waiting to challenge whichever candidate or candidates emerge.

The big issue is money; most of the campaigns can only compete for now in those early states. When those states are done, the campaigns will reassign staff to the later states. Bloomberg is already campaigning in those states (his ads were on in Arizona on yesterday's NFL playoff games), and staffing up:

Quote:

In addition to flooding the airwaves with television ads, Bloomberg has already put more than 200 staffers on the ground in states that vote in March and April. He traveled recently to Ohio and Michigan, where he has hired senior state-level staff and plans to open 9 offices and 12 offices, respectively.

His campaign told POLITICO he plans to open five offices in Missouri, 17 in Florida and 12 in Illinois.

Belz... · 6th January 2020, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Here's a fairly long piece on how Bloomberg is upending the race:

The big issue is money; most of the campaigns can only compete for now in those early states. When those states are done, the campaigns will reassign staff to the later states. Bloomberg is already campaigning in those states (his ads were on in Arizona on yesterday's NFL playoff games), and staffing up:

American politics are amusingly depressing.

SezMe · 6th January 2020, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Here's a fairly long piece on how Bloomberg is upending the race:

Quote:

In addition to flooding the airwaves with television ads, Bloomberg has already put more than 200 staffers on the ground in states that vote in March and April. He traveled recently to Ohio and Michigan, where he has hired senior state-level staff and plans to open 9 offices and 12 offices, respectively.

His campaign told POLITICO he plans to open five offices in Missouri, 17 in Florida and 12 in Illinois.

The big issue is money; most of the campaigns can only compete for now in those early states. When those states are done, the campaigns will reassign staff to the later states. Bloomberg is already campaigning in those states (his ads were on in Arizona on yesterday's NFL playoff games), and staffing up:

I would guess that the experienced, high quality people would have been hired by the early contenders. I wonder if his money is buying the staff he would really like to have.

Trebuchet · 6th January 2020, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

American politics are ~~amusingly~~ depressing.

Fixed that for me.

theprestige · 6th January 2020, 07:33 PM

Also politics are emotional. Some of the best campaign strategists are dispassionate mercenaries. But most people working on the campaign believe in the candidate they're working for.

Bloomberg is a little late to hire any of the top mercenaries. So his campaign is being worked by bench warmer mercs, clock watching wage slaves, and whatever "Bloomberg for president" true believers that are actually out there. And close personal friends.

3rd January 2020, 01:15 PM	#121
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,922	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby Biden said we're all dead if we don't get rid of fossil fuels and he's ready to put energy company execs in prison. LOL -- and this is the Dems' leading candidate. I wonder if he'll lock up his son first, for his crime of having been on the board of an energy company. In any case, I'm sure AOC is a lock to be his Secretary of Energy if he somehow gets elected. Something tells me you're taking whatever he said out of context. In fact, I'd bet every penny I have that you are. Still, the general consensus among scientists is that if man doesn't curtail the amount of C02 it emits into the atmosphere it is likely that global warming will cause huge population die offs that will likely include man. Is it possible that the planet could reverse that trend then? Possibly. But the concern is that there is a tipping point where it is impossible to keep our planet from becoming like Venus. What I've never understood is why people deny science. Maybe you could enlighten me?
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

3rd January 2020, 01:46 PM	#123
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,922	Originally Posted by theprestige I'm saying it's idealism to think of the party primaries as a platform to demonstrate better voting systems, or that this should be the party's priority. And it's clearly not an ideal shared by any of the state party organizations, for either major party, ever. Exhibit A: The Iowa caucuses. We agree on something. That's a shock. I've been thinking about something Prestige. I'd like to know what you think about it, Both Jefferson and Adams as well as other of the founders lamented the creation of political parties. I do too. I tend to believe it causes division where there is none or little. We end up with a situation where the Majority leader or the Speaker prevent legislation that in itself might enjoy majority support just not of the respective party. For example, while you and I may disagree 80 percent of time why should we fight 100 percent of the time? Why can't we move forward where we share common ground. How can we resolve this impasse?
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 3rd January 2020 at 03:00 PM.

3rd January 2020, 01:55 PM	#124
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige I'm saying it's idealism to think of the party primaries as a platform to demonstrate better voting systems, or that this should be the party's priority. And it's clearly not an ideal shared by any of the state party organizations, for either major party, ever. Exhibit A: The Iowa caucuses. Oh, OK. I can agree with that.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

3rd January 2020, 04:04 PM	#126
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,922	Originally Posted by theprestige I see it as being the other way around. Yes, tribalism has its drawbacks, but political parties are a symptom of divisions that already exist. I also think they're unavoidable. Like money and police, if we didn't have them the first think we'd do is invent them. If we outlawed them, like-minded people would just meet in secret to pool their resources and advance their policy agendas. Political parties date back to at least the Roman Republic. They probably go back much further. They've been a feature of pretty much every Western democracy ever. I see them as a natural and unavoidable consequence of citizens being free to associate with each other and engage in political advocacy. As soon as you have two people disagreeing about policy, you have two political parties. You may be right that their formation my be a natural tendency, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an impediment to good government.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

3rd January 2020, 04:09 PM	#127
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,524	Originally Posted by acbytesla You may be right that their formation my be a natural tendency, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an impediment to good government. You go to govern with the humans you have, not the humans you wish to have or plan to have at a later date. The goal is to devise a form of government that's reasonably functional in spite of the fact that humans are imperfect and some of them are highly motivated douchebags. The western parliamentary and federal systems do a pretty good job of this. Soviet Communism tried the other thing: Aspirational government that would produce the perfect humans it wished to have, by fiat and force. We all know how that turned out.
	Last edited by theprestige; 3rd January 2020 at 04:15 PM.

3rd January 2020, 01:28 PM	#122
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,524	Originally Posted by Cabbage Wanting a fairer system is most certainly not idealism, it's simple common sense. I'm saying it's idealism to think of the party primaries as a platform to demonstrate better voting systems, or that this should be the party's priority. And it's clearly not an ideal shared by any of the state party organizations, for either major party, ever. Exhibit A: The Iowa caucuses.

3rd January 2020, 03:00 PM	#125
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,524	Originally Posted by acbytesla We agree on something. That's a shock. I've been thinking about something Prestige. I'd like to know what you think about it, Both Jefferson and Adams as well as other of the founders lamented the creation of political parties. I do to. I tend to believe it causes division where there is none or little. I see it as being the other way around. Yes, tribalism has its drawbacks, but political parties are a symptom of divisions that already exist. I also think they're unavoidable. Like money and police, if we didn't have them the first think we'd do is invent them. If we outlawed them, like-minded people would just meet in secret to pool their resources and advance their policy agendas. Political parties date back to at least the Roman Republic. They probably go back much further. They've been a feature of pretty much every Western democracy ever. I see them as a natural and unavoidable consequence of citizens being free to associate with each other and engage in political advocacy. As soon as you have two people disagreeing about policy, you have two political parties.

3rd January 2020, 04:31 PM	#128
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,922	Originally Posted by theprestige You go to govern with the humans you have, not the humans you wish to have or plan to have at a later date. The goal is to devise a form of government that's reasonably functional in spite of the fact that humans are imperfect and some of them are highly motivated douchebags. The western parliamentary and federal systems do a pretty good job of this. Soviet Communism tried the other thing: Aspirational government that would produce the perfect humans it wished to have, by fiat and force. We all know how that turned out. I don't disagree with any of this. But that doesn't mean tweaking the system couldn't make our systems better. To say were stuck with the rules we have seems a bit defeatist.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

3rd January 2020, 09:55 PM	#129
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,825	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html His withdrawal was always a matter of when, not if. But I share his complaint about Iowa and New Hampshire. Why do we (the USA) continue the idiocy of letting these two highly non-representative states play such a large role in our presidential election process? Iowa is especially suspect. They vote by a caucus that you have to physically attend to vote in the very middle of winter. If you tried, you'd have a hard time creating a worse process.
	Last edited by SezMe; 3rd January 2020 at 09:57 PM.

3rd January 2020, 10:01 PM	#130
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,825	Originally Posted by RoseMontague To this last point, being Indie has it's advantages. In my state I can vote in either the Dem or the GOP primary. In 2016 I voted in the GOP primary and in 2018 the Den primary. That way I can support who I think is the best candidate, rather than being limited to one party or another. Oh, I quite agree. I'm an indie, in legal terms, a "Decline to State".

3rd January 2020, 10:03 PM	#131
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,825	Originally Posted by acbytesla As opposed to the State of Minnesota limiting the GOP ballot to one name? But I don't care about the Iowa caucus. It amounts to about 1 percent of the total number of delegates. Yes, but a waaaaaayyyy outsized importance in the nomination process.

3rd January 2020, 10:09 PM	#132
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,825	Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive The GOP has always been corrupt. Conservatism IS corrupt at its core. Let me jump in before Zig reads this: That is a giant pant load.

3rd January 2020, 10:11 PM	#133
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,524	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue How the parties run their own internal screening processes (I actually think calling me 'elections' and using associated terminology in reference to them is bad, although I get that it is the established and common way of doing it) is a red herring, it's not the problem. If the GOP and Dems want to pick their candidate by double elimination poker tournaments, more power to them. The problem is in an ingrained two party system enabled by first past the post voting that makes them the only viable candidates. I agree with all of this, except perhaps the last paragraph, which I will have to give more thought.

3rd January 2020, 10:14 PM	#134
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,825	Originally Posted by acbytesla We agree on something. That's a shock. I've been thinking about something Prestige. I'd like to know what you think about it, Both Jefferson and Adams as well as other of the founders lamented the creation of political parties. I do too. I tend to believe it causes division where there is none or little. We end up with a situation where the Majority leader or the Speaker prevent legislation that in itself might enjoy majority support just not of the respective party. For example, while you and I may disagree 80 percent of time why should we fight 100 percent of the time? Why can't we move forward where we share common ground. How can we resolve this impasse? I don't see the aggregation of immense power in the hands of the Speaker or Majority Leader as side effects of a two-party system. I agree that the two party system has a lot of negative side effects. But the only way to remedy that is to eliminate first-past-the-post vote counting in favor of ranked voting. I hope the Maine experiment serves as a model for the nation.

3rd January 2020, 11:33 PM	#135
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,922	Originally Posted by SezMe Yes, but a waaaaaayyyy outsized importance in the nomination process. I'm a 100 percent convinced that Iowa and NH's importance is overemphasized. Bloomberg skipped them entirely and I just read he is in 3rd place in the polls. NH and Iowa combinet make up at most 3 percent of the delegates. I'm amazed that more candidates haven't come to the conclusion that there is a better way to win the nomination.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

3rd January 2020, 11:35 PM	#136
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,922	Originally Posted by SezMe I don't see the aggregation of immense power in the hands of the Speaker or Majority Leader as side effects of a two-party system. Really? Just look at what McConnell has done again and get back to me.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

4th January 2020, 02:41 AM	#137
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,149	Originally Posted by acbytesla I'm a 100 percent convinced that Iowa and NH's importance is overemphasized. Bloomberg skipped them entirely and I just read he is in 3rd place in the polls. NH and Iowa combinet make up at most 3 percent of the delegates. I'm amazed that more candidates haven't come to the conclusion that there is a better way to win the nomination. Yes, there is the other option of spending $200 million out of your own pocket on advertising.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

4th January 2020, 06:51 PM	#138
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,825	Originally Posted by acbytesla Really? Just look at what McConnell has done again and get back to me. I despise McConnell as much as you do but that's irrelevant to whether his power arises out of a two-party political system. If we had 3, 4 or even more viable national parties, the Majority Leader and Speaker of the House could, over time, aggregate as much power as they have in the current two-party system.

4th January 2020, 06:55 PM	#139
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,922	Originally Posted by SezMe I despise McConnell as much as you do but that's irrelevant to whether his power arises out of a two-party political system. If we had 3, 4 or even more viable national parties, the Majority Leader and Speaker of the House could, over time, aggregate as much power as they have in the current two-party system. It is because of the party system that we have a "majority leader" . McConnell is blocking everything from the house just like he was wihen Obama was President. The party system screws up allegiances. Instead of working for the country, he is working on behalf of his party.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

5th January 2020, 06:09 AM	#140
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	It is so bizarre that thebcandidate with the most experience for the job is in his thirties. I guess now it is Bloomberg.

5th January 2020, 06:12 AM	#141
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	Originally Posted by acbytesla It is because of the party system that we have a "majority leader" . McConnell is blocking everything from the house just like he was wihen Obama was President. The party system screws up allegiances. Instead of working for the country, he is working on behalf of his party. I bet he thought Obama's plans were bad for the country.

5th January 2020, 06:53 AM	#142
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,275	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I bet he thought Obama's plans were bad for the country. That wouldn't explain why Moscow Mitch filibustered his own bill as soon as Obama said he'd sign it.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,275

5th January 2020, 06:57 AM	#143
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,275	Originally Posted by SezMe I don't see the aggregation of immense power in the hands of the Speaker or Majority Leader as side effects of a two-party system. House Speaker is an actual-constitutionally mandated position with a particular set of powers. Majority (and Minority) Leader positions exist solely as a function of the two party system.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,275

5th January 2020, 07:12 AM	#144
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,093	Originally Posted by Mumbles That wouldn't explain why Moscow Mitch filibustered his own bill as soon as Obama said he'd sign it. In 2011 when he proposed the idea it was part of resolving the debt ceiling deal. In 2012 when he out it out and filibustered it himself it was gamesmanship to resolve the issue. In 2011, it was already a proposed compromise to resolve the debt crisis. That can hardly be described as a good idea. That is easily attributable to the least bad solution to the crisis that was at hand.

5th January 2020, 08:39 AM	#145
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,582	My wife had someone on TV interviewing Warren while I was in the bathroom this morning. She was just repeating campaign talking points, sounding very well rehearsed, while evading actual questions. I wasn't impressed.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

5th January 2020, 08:45 AM	#146
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,524	Originally Posted by Trebuchet My wife had someone on TV interviewing Warren while I was in the bathroom this morning. She was just repeating campaign talking points, sounding very well rehearsed, while evading actual questions. I wasn't impressed. I noticed a long time ago that this is something politicians do. It's actually become a kind of "drinking game" for me, on the rare occasions that I watch a politician give an interview. How diligently do they stick to their program? How smoothly do they work the dodges? Etc. To the point where part of my "grade" for a politician is based on how well they manage the evasion. It sounds like Warren has been working on her technique. She's probably got a a good head for it, and a good coach.

5th January 2020, 01:28 PM	#147
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,840	I'm just as unimpressed by journalists who go up to politicans and ask them "hard questions" and expect them to answer a certain way on the spot. In many ways it's better if we get to see a prepared speech on the stage, a townhall for ex, or in written form, but most voters I imagine don't want to read.

5th January 2020, 01:40 PM	#148
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,524	Originally Posted by Venom I'm just as unimpressed by journalists who go up to politicans and ask them "hard questions" and expect them to answer a certain way on the spot. In many ways it's better if we get to see a prepared speech on the stage, a townhall for ex, or in written form, but most voters I imagine don't want to read. There's very little reward, and huge risk, for a politician to speak extemporaneously and on the record. It's much safer - and much more effective - to turn every line of questioning back to their prepared remarks. Even when the dodge is transparent or clumsy, it's still better than trying to craft a suitable response to whatever the question was, in real time.

5th January 2020, 02:12 PM	#149
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,312	Originally Posted by theprestige There's very little reward, and huge risk, for a politician to speak extemporaneously and on the record. It's much safer - and much more effective - to turn every line of questioning back to their prepared remarks. Even when the dodge is transparent or clumsy, it's still better than trying to craft a suitable response to whatever the question was, in real time. There's also the matter of wanting people to remember specific things about what Warren's aiming for, and repeating those things is a main way to get out the message. Going a little further, a number of the complaints about Warren's evasiveness during the campaign have basically been... "Why isn't Warren indulging GOP narrative and instead is focusing on pushing a distinctly more correct narrative that is also much more favorable to her plans?" The sheer number of those have ended up making me much less sympathetic to that particular complaint.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 5th January 2020 at 02:13 PM.

6th January 2020, 08:51 AM	#150
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by Trebuchet My wife had someone on TV interviewing Warren while I was in the bathroom this morning. She was just repeating campaign talking points, sounding very well rehearsed, while evading actual questions. I wasn't impressed. Was it a scheduled sit down interview with questions that could have reasonable been expected? If yes, ya, I agree, lame. If not, I don't blame anyone for falling back to talking points. I much prefer well thought out answers than off the cuff remarks.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

6th January 2020, 08:57 AM	#151
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	Castro just endorsed Warren, fueling even more speculation of him as her VP pick. He's Latino, from a currently red state that might go purple in the near future, young, and has credibility with DNC leadership. He is also very outspoken on issues like justice reform and immigration. He can remind people of 2008 Obama without having all the baggage like Biden.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

6th January 2020, 09:04 AM	#152
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,524	Originally Posted by Donal Castro just endorsed Warren, fueling even more speculation of him as her VP pick. He's Latino, from a currently red state that might go purple in the near future, young, and has credibility with DNC leadership. He is also very outspoken on issues like justice reform and immigration. He can remind people of 2008 Obama without having all the baggage like Biden. If he reminded people of 2008 Obama, he'd be getting ready to crush Biden in Iowa, instead of dropping out of the race because Iowans aren't ready for a nominee of color.

6th January 2020, 09:31 AM	#153
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,152	As far as Warren goes, when she starts a reply with "so...." you know she is not going to answer it. She will give a lecture on a related topic or recite an incident. This is why I like Klobuchar as a person more from the beginning. I did not always agree with her solution. But all of them were realistic, in a 2 party system.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

6th January 2020, 10:07 AM	#154
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	I know too many MidWesterners to like Klobuchar. People keep mistaking their passive aggressive dismissals for politeness.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

6th January 2020, 10:43 AM	#155
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,582	I find myself kind of liking Steyer. Which means nothing other than that his commercials are more effective with me than Bloomberg's. I haven't seen any from anyone else.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.