Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Who's Going to Win South Carolina?

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 585 39.2%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 853 57.2%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 24 1.6%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 7 0.5%
  • THE KLOBBERER

    Votes: 16 1.1%
  • Tom Steyer

    Votes: 6 0.4%

  • Total voters
    1,491
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryuelli

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,843
For a Canadian who just wants it to be November so I can be disappointed/enraged at America for the millionth time, when is this all settled? Why don’t they just do all the caucuses on the same day?

like. Shouldn’t this be done by now and give lots of time for the candidate to build up a team, plan and begin campaigning?
The explanation I've heard is that spreading them out allows for campaigns that have less money to get their name out there. I feel like that's a bit of an outdated explanation though, because with the internet and modern news these campaigns haven't exactly popped up out of nowhere and have had plenty of times to do just that.

Super Tuesday is next month though which seems to be the big finale for primary season.
 

sleepnaught

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,414
For a Canadian who just wants it to be November so I can be disappointed/enraged at America for the millionth time, when is this all settled? Why don’t they just do all the caucuses on the same day?

like. Shouldn’t this be done by now and give lots of time for the candidate to build up a team, plan and begin campaigning?
For some maniacal reason, we like to drag on our campaigns for 18+ months
 

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,380
For a Canadian who just wants it to be November so I can be disappointed/enraged at America for the millionth time, when is this all settled? Why don’t they just do all the caucuses on the same day?

like. Shouldn’t this be done by now and give lots of time for the candidate to build up a team, plan and begin campaigning?
Unlike in a parliamentary system where the party leader (and let's be clear, even though the president is not technically the party leader, they're basically the party leader) is chosen internally, the candidates need to make their case to hundreds of millions of people here. If you just had a 30 day period of announcements to votes, the ones who would benefit would be the ones who already have the biggest name recognition. It would be Clintons and Bidens and so forth forever. There is absolutely no chance that Bernie Sanders would have ever gained a foothold if the 2016 primary had happened in a blip.

Spreading out the primary season gives time for candidates to be vetted, to make their case, to stumble, to improve, to travel around to different states to interact with voters in different parts of the country, etc.

The primaries will be over in the summer, with the convention in mid-July. If one candidate hits the required amount of delegates, they'll win. If not, it will be a contested convention with a lot of dealmaking to reach a consensus candidate.
 

eebster

Member
Nov 2, 2017
711
For a Canadian who just wants it to be November so I can be disappointed/enraged at America for the millionth time, when is this all settled? Why don’t they just do all the caucuses on the same day?

like. Shouldn’t this be done by now and give lots of time for the candidate to build up a team, plan and begin campaigning?
The campaign takes so long because it's not a parliamentary system. Germans, French, Canadians, English know what their parties stand for. There's no need for the parties to rally for a year plus cause regardless of who the candidate will be the policies are mostly known. But when you elect specific people they need their time to gain momentum, to make their name, to introduce their policies and it takes time for voters to get to know the candidates. And it's good the way it is cause otherwise Bernie in 2016 and thus 2020 would not have been possible.

Imagine if all the primaries were held at the same day and the entire process from candidacy announcements to the actual primaries took like 6 months or less. Unknown candidates like Bernie would have absolutely no chance and it would be just an old mans club of establishment candidates winning every single primary.


EDIT: sphagnum was quicker
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,704
I mean the actual voting that is happening with delegates and such. Like why not do that in one day at the end of it since haven’t they already been campaigning for months? How many debates have there been? We know what Biden and Bernie and Pete and Warren and yang stand for, and if we don’t then that’s their fault for not articulating it or the systems fault for not making them articulate it. It just so odd that Iowa is done but some states won’t decide their end for months.

but I find the entire us political system so utterly baffling.It’s a miracle you guys get anything done.
 

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,380
I mean the actual voting that is happening with delegates and such. Like why not do that in one day at the end of it since haven’t they already been campaigning for months? How many debates have there been? We know what Biden and Bernie and Pete and Warren and yang stand for, and if we don’t then that’s their fault for not articulating it or the systems fault for not making them articulate it. It just so odd that Iowa is done but some states won’t decide their end for months.

but I find the entire us political system so utterly baffling.It’s a miracle you guys get anything done.
It forces the candidates to travel around. If everything was held on one day, they'd ignore all the smaller density "flyover" states and concentrate all their efforts on maxing out votes in delegate-heavy states. There's also just a bunch of tradition behind it, like how Iowa and New Hampshire have laws that require them to be before anyone else.

A lot of people also don't pay attention early on or remain undecided until they start seeing who looks like a winner and who looks like a loser.

Super Tuesday is sort of a compromise, because there's a few contests before it, but it's so top heavy that if one person manages to come out way ahead on that day then they'll probably be the presumptive nominee and most of the other candidates will drop out anyway.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,413
Even then, it should be a point of respect to see the light coming from a dark pit.

There's also pride in Sanders' being on the right side of history - again and again and again - but fighting your own cultural prejudices should also be commendable, and something we dearly need in 2020.
Yeah, the "remember when Liz was a Republican lmao?" line of attack has always seemed odd to me. Sanders being right about a lot of important stuff for so long is great, but that doesn't then necessitate painting Warren's trajectory in a negative light. Both of them have compelling stories.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,704
It forces the candidates to travel around. If everything was held on one day, they'd ignore all the smaller density "flyover" states and concentrate all their efforts on maxing out votes in delegate-heavy states. There's also just a bunch of tradition behind it, like how Iowa and New Hampshire have laws that require them to be before anyone else.

A lot of people also don't pay attention early on or remain undecided until they start seeing who
looks like a winner and who looks like a loser.

Super Tuesday is sort of a compromise, because there's a few contests before it, but it's so top heavy that if one person manages to come out way ahead on that day then they'll probably be the presumptive nominee and most of the other candidates will drop out anyway.
Ah okay. Makes some more sense. Still seems too complicated for its own good though.
 

Blue Skies

Member
Mar 27, 2019
7,947
The hell does it matter if someone may or may not have voted for Reagan 40 years ago? Does anything in her policies scream “Reagan Republican”?
What I was getting at in my post was that she’s a relatively new politician and she was pretty apolitical before and she’s only run as Democrat. Meanwhile other candidates have run as independents and now turned to democrats
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
3,300
Warren founding the CPB is more important to me than Bernie's positions from 30 years ago with regard to progressive credit. She's excellent at assessing problems and solving them. I still maintain Warren would be the best president the US can have at this point.
 

jstevenson

Developer at Insomniac Games
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,150
Burbank CA
Staggered primaries also effectively acts as a ranked choice voting system. Candidates become unviable allowing people in later states to realign
 

Mekanos

Member
Oct 17, 2018
17,558
Agreed that progressives shouldn't be dragging Warren through the mud for being Republican 30 years ago. It's not productive and makes us look spiteful and obsessed with purity tests.

I maintain that if Bernie wins, she should be in the Senate. She would be one of his biggest allies there.
 
Oct 30, 2017
2,047
Agreed that progressives shouldn't be dragging Warren through the mud for being Republican 30 years ago. It's not productive and makes us look spiteful and obsessed with purity tests.

I maintain that if Bernie wins, she should be in the Senate. She would be one of his biggest allies there.
Vice-President with Bernie doing one term? Yes please!
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,522
USA
Unless somebody asks for a recanvass, probably.

(Tom Perez already did but apparently the IDP is sticking to its guns and insisting it has to be requested by a candidate)
Damn, that really sucks, sounds like if they fix the errors Bernie would win in SDE too.

Bernie has no reason to call for recount, so I think it's the right call not to; the narrative would be far more harmful than helpful. People are moving on and the media would hardly care if he got a couple more SDE's to win.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,392
Bernard's new NH Ad.


Why would billionaires fund a candidate who would hurt their wealth and bottom line? They wouldn't.

Damn, that really sucks, sounds like if they fix the errors Bernie would win in SDE too.

Bernie has no reason to call for recount, so I think it's the right call not to; the narrative would be far more harmful than helpful. People are moving on and the media would hardly care if he got a couple more SDE's to win.
A recount will not be accurate. Many precincts on election night were reporting issues with collecting the preference cards. And afterwards many places admit that people walked away with them. A recount will change the result and will be even less accurate.
 

ScribbleD

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,402
Cross-posting this from the Joe Biden ad thread since it's not just kind of hilarious, but also pretty telling. 18-year-old Pete endorses Bernie Sanders effusively while flaming current day Pete in such on-point fashion.

"A new attitude has swept American politics. Candidates have discovered that is easier to be elected by not offending anyone rather than by impressing the voters. Politicians are rushing for the center, careful not to stick their necks out on issues."
-Pete Buttigieg

"Cynical candidates have developed an ability to outgrow their convictions in order to win power."
Source:
Some other highlights:

"[Sanders] and few others like him have the power to restore principle and leadership in Congress and to win back the faith of a voting public weary and wary of political opportunism."
"One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only Independent Congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.
Sanders’ courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: “Socialist”. In a country where Communism is still the dirtiest of ideological dirty words, in a climate where even liberalism is considered radical, and Socialism is immediately and perhaps willfully confused with Communism, a politician dares to call himself a socialist? He does indeed. Here is someone who has “looked into his own soul” and expressed an ideology, the endorsement of which, in today’s political atmosphere, is analogous to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Even though he has lived through a time in which an admitted socialist could not act in a film, let alone hold a Congressional seat, Sanders is not afraid to be candid about his political persuasion."
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,204
What I was getting at in my post was that she’s a relatively new politician and she was pretty apolitical before and she’s only run as Democrat. Meanwhile other candidates have run as independents and now turned to democrats
- You're not "pretty apolitical" if you actually register with a specific party. Relatively, sure, given where she's at now
- You imply that being an independent previously, in contrast, matters more because that person actually ran for office. How so when his positions have remained virtually the same and the only change has been party affiliation?

Specious argument after specious argument.

I might need some education on Bernie's history with the democratic party but my understanding has been that he's also worked well with Democrats but he was too far left for the party and not exactly welcomed most of the time.
 

Blue Skies

Member
Mar 27, 2019
7,947
- You're not "pretty apolitical" if you actually register with a specific party. Relatively, sure, given where she's at now
- You imply that being an independent previously, in contrast, matters more because that person actually ran for office. How so when his positions have remained virtually the same and the only change has been party affiliation?

Specious argument after specious argument.
Going after warren for being a Republican voter 25 years ago is just ridiculous and divisive
I want a doer in the White House and Warren basically starting an entire bureau of the government when she wasn’t even an elected official is fucking awesome and it undoes any “had a Republican Party registration”. Come on yo, also, “he’s never changed his mind on anything” isn’t the best argument. Growth is important.

hell, if Bernie hadbeen more involved in party politics before, maybe he’d have won 2016.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,204
Going after warren for being a Republican voter 25 years ago is just ridiculous and divisive
I want a doer in the White House and Warren basically starting an entire bureau of the government when she wasn’t even an elected official is fucking awesome and it undoes any “had a Republican Party registration”. Come on yo, also, “he’s never changed his mind on anything” isn’t the best argument. Growth is important.

hell, if Bernie hadbeen more involved in party politics before, maybe he’d have won 2016.
I don't think you put much thought into this. Please engage sincerely with people. You're very active in this thread and I find you're just jumping from argument to argument without actually listening to others.

- I'm not going after Warren. I agree that she shouldn't be attacked for it. I'm pointing out your insecurities and manipulation of language
- Bernie has always been incredibly progressive and supportive of minority communities. Suggesting that his consistency in politics should be seen as a detriment in this context is absurd.
- Agreed that his aversion from the party may have hurt his chances in 2016. Though he could have spent decades as a Democrat and he'd still be coming up against the moderate establishment core of the party and its backers.
 

Blue Skies

Member
Mar 27, 2019
7,947
I don't think you put much thought into this. Please engage sincerely with people. You're very active in this thread and I find you're just jumping from argument to argument without actually listening to others.

- I'm not going after Warren. I agree that she shouldn't be attacked for it. I'm pointing out your insecurities and manipulation of language
- Bernie has always been incredibly progressive and supportive of minority communities. Suggesting that his consistency in politics should be seen as a detriment in this context is absurd.
- Agreed that his aversion from the party may have hurt his chances in 2016. Though he could have spent decades as a Democrat and he'd still be coming up against the moderate establishment core of the party and its backers.
Registering with a party doesn’t make someone political in my opinion.
shes already talked about how it was the default in Oklahoma where she wasraised.

registering with a party is as simple asjust checking a box when you sign up to vote
 

Tfritz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,408
Yes, Sanders being on the right side of history his whole life is definitely a major charcter flaw. If only he could have started off with hugely problematic views and then "grown"
Love that expanding America's prison state so it can lock up more black people was the right side of history, according to you. Love that giving Presidents the authority to bomb whoever they want, whenever they want, as long as they think the place has some connection to 9/11. Love that you consider that the right side of history.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,277

I can't believe he said this. I thought it was a bit. Supposedly he did this in Iowa to someone who called Biden a liar.
 

Tfritz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,408
Great! This is something he's grown on, crisis averted.
which is something you personally consider a character flaw, according to your own post. it's very strange that you think this is "great" but imo i also think it's strange you cheered him on as being on the right side of history for destroying millions of families for decades because he wanted to lock up black people, so i guess we'll never really see eye to eye. i guess america really is a land of contrasts.
 

kradical

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,196
which is something you personally consider a character flaw, according to your own post. it's very strange that you think this is "great" but imo i also think it's strange you cheered him on as being on the right side of history for destroying millions of families for decades because he wanted to lock up black people, so i guess we'll never really see eye to eye. i guess america really is a land of contrasts.
I don't really follow what you're saying but I'm sure it's very funny/incisive.
 

kaylaz

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,233
Bernie has been on the right side defending rights for women and minorities for decades before warren. 🙂
 

the_id

Member
Oct 25, 2017
573
Just watched the Bernie’s interview with Jake Tapper this morning on CNN, and i was thinking, they’re finally giving him some air time?

But then I had to hear Jake ask about Bernie’s stance on maximum wages FOURTY FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO or mention Hillary attacking Bernie a few days ago....AGAIN!

MSM need to continue ignoring Bernie, he’s downing well enough without them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,204
Wait, so are we criticizing Sanders for being an inflexible politician who allegedly hasn't changed in decades, or for once holding shitty views that he has since evolved on?
 

Tfritz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,408
User Banned (1 Week): Trolling in violation of the staff post
Wait, so are we criticizing Sanders for being an inflexible politician who allegedly hasn't changed in decades, or for once holding shitty views that he has since evolved on?
it seems like mostly we're criticizing weird cult people who are all like "BERNIE HAS BEEN RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING HIS ENTIRE LIFE" by pointing out that he's done bad stuff, actually, and then i guess ppl get super defensive about it, for some reason? idk, stream kesha's hit new album High Road, today!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.