If they can't make a vote, that's what absentee voting is for. That's just fine. Early voting as a normalized system-wide thing ends up with people voting weeks in advance without access to new information.
Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
What a world.
Probably doesn't help her that much, but who knows?
Amy will win Minnesota, which is otherwise a very strong state for Bernie. If Pete stays in he takes support from Biden and lowers Biden's chance to be viable in about half of the states on Tuesday. Amy is weak enough elsewhere that she takes less votes away from Biden than Pete does, so the net effect of the move is stronger is she stays in. If your goal is to fuck over Bernie, having Pete drop out and Amy stay in is the right play
Because support keeps getting reallocated between candidates in what is seemingly a really fluid race and the nominee will be weak af after the convention at this rate.
It's going to make it very difficult in November if you've got multiple candidates declaring this
This assumes a lot more coordination than is probably going on.
It's going to be a hell of a convention if Sanders can't get over the threshold.
But your proposal doesn’t do that, as appealing to Dem Primary voters in, say, Ohio doesn’t necessarily mean a candidate would be more appealing to swing voters in that state. It’s possible the candidate who can win some support of at least a few traditionally conservative voters in Conneticut (for example) could be better equipped to win Ohio in the general, even over someone that won the primary there.
So in the end, you’re just making some members of the party more important than others using a similar flawed standard as what we have now.
i don't understand why amy would not be taking support away from joe biden?
The "hey this is just how the game works" take on this brazen collusion among non-Sanders candidates is especially funny since it doesn't change the fact that he's going to get the most votes and have the most delegates. What the party chooses to do with that will determine whether they self-destruct or not.
Ranked choice voting solves this. If your first pick drops out, move it to your second choice.
That too. No matter why the campaigns are doing what they're doing, the effects will be the same, so people can read meaning into it as much as they want to, making it easy to make false or loaded assumptions.
saying that people 'choose' to vote early is silly imo. lots of people dont have the ability to go to a polling station on the day of an election and early voting is sometimes the only viable choice for lower-income people
yeap. i agree
well they definitely aren't turning out for biden. and those good bernie areas are also definitely not turning out for biden, especially when his record becomes apparent to everyone.
Bernie's answer of what is he going to do when he can't pass the legislation he has promised always rubbed me the wrong way. Traveling to states and holding rallies is going to do fuck all. Trump has been doing rallies every month or so since his election and I can't think of one issue that has moved the needle on. Obama had probably the most legendary campaign I'll ever witness in 08 (he won fucking Indiana) and yet Scott Brown won the senate seat in Massachussets in 2010. So yeah I'm not buying that tactic at all.
Oh don't get me wrong I am 100% in favor of early voting. I just think if you vote that far in advance and the person drops out then its an oh well situation. Allowing people to cast a 2nd ballot afterwards just causes a lot more problems than it fixes... some states can't even get it right as it is as we find out basically every election
it depends on which poll you're looking at, they all seem to be radically different. it sure makes super tuesday exciting though, doesn't it?
How...is a nominee weak if they won the nomination?
Wouldn't it make sense that the weak candidates are the ones who are dropping?
They just did in SC. The areas with increased turnout were directly benefiting Biden.
Polling is basically blind monkeys throwing darts all over the bar on this one.
i think the solution some posters mentioned here is ranked choice voting. that sounds like a reasonable solution to a lot of problems even outside of early voting
The "brazen collusion" they're literally demanding from Warren as they decry it from ~*tHe MoDeRaTeS*~?
In many democracies such coalition-building is the basis of Democratic legitimacy, even if it leads to the exclusion of a plurality party.
It's an option for people who want to take it, I don't see the issue. If you're someone who is concerned about knowing everything until the final day of the election, then just wait til the day of the ballot, but there's a number of people who want to vote early and like I said, it's something else to make voting a little bit easier for some people.
Hell, apply that to the entirety of the primary process too. People who voted in Iowa are already looking at a very different field than they voted in, so why not just do the whole thing all at once?
Because there won't be the 'happy' 'unification' of candidates' supporters to the winner like the DNC would hope for, and instead will likely just lead to embitterment towards opposing candidates, which means it's far more likely Trump will be reelected.
glad to see that biden is winning that coveted south carolina vote which will be critical in general. he has this one in the bag.
Man some people are really struggling with the reality that Biden can still win this primary with the popular vote and majority of votes huh?
A couple of months down the line and it probably won't matter that they are saying this at the moment. Remember that people like Obama are going to be campaigning hard for Bernie (if he grabs the nomination) to smooth over any edges. Now if they continue to say this sort of stuff against Bernie leading up to November then that is an entirely different matter but I don't see that occurring.
She would be taking away votes outside of Minnesota, but much less than Pete, as she has about half of his support nationally. Being a spoiler in Minnesota is important, if you put any stock in the idea of party collusion to screw over Bernie, which you shouldn't really, because Bernie and Warren are likely the only other two candidates that are viable in Minnesota, even if Amy drops out. Taking away Minnesota is a much bigger deal than whatever support she will take away from Biden nationally
Right. If Warren dropped out tonight to endorse Bernie, would people be upset and claiming collusion? Come on.
I see we're in the "South Carolina voters aren't real progressives" state of erasure.
[
At least ~*tHe MoDeRaTeS*~ have some measure of solidarity
Yes, actually
At least ~*tHe MoDeRaTeS*~ have some measure of solidarity
If they win the nomination through brokering at the convention despite not getting a convincing lead, that's a weak nominee.
No system is perfect, but if you want to make the argument that 1.) swing voters in Connecticut are a better determinant of general election success in Ohio than Ohio, make the case.
2.) Dems are not winning by strategizing around flipping Republicans, so if your concern is independents than allow them into the process based on some criteria to avoid Republican sabotage. But knowing who is most enthusiastic about who in key states is a far more important data point than anything.
Either way, what I am not hearing is why the current situation is somehow optimal, or better than focusing on swing states first?
My intuition is that it is less to do with policy and more for the person. Honestly I feel like they might mostly go to Warren. It will probably be some split to her and Biden I'd guess. Biden still has his problems, though.
Bernie being so antagonistic to him was kinda stupid (everyone calling him rat and all that) too. Pete had an extremely up hill battle and doing well in Iowa and NH (while it was expected due to demos) was pretty amazing considering he was a mayor of a small city. I feel like he got a bit too "prepared" though.
I still feel like he will be a lobbyist or a contributor on MSNBC soon.
That sounds like a problem unique to democrats, regardless of who wins.
GOP has set aside all their differences and fallen in line.
Hey yeah while we're on the subject of Real Progressivism, what's up with Bernie not being at that Selma event today unlike literally everyone else with delegates in the field?
Always an excuse.
I don't know how many dots are necessary for most folks to start connecting them but it's pretty clear what's going on.
This is only "coalition-building" in the most euphemistic of readings.
Calling this “collusion” is like accusing people playing Risk of cheating because they made alliances. That’s a legitimate and core element of the game.
Every candidate running would welcome the support of any candidate who dropped out.
- Status