Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
Change it up. One election year, the state primaries happen in alphabetical order. The next year, reverse it. The next year, it goes by chronological order of when the state entered the Union. The following election, reverse it.
Shake it up, so it is less predictable. Stop making only four or five states matter.
Also, do away with the Electoral college for the same reason.
One longtime Republican whose blog was called "GOP Lifer" left the party when Trump took it over. His new blog is https://www.politicalorphans.com/ and I find it well worth reading.
--
The discussion forum for fans of 20th-century comics: http://classiccomics.org
I favor squeezing the primaries into Two Months, May and June.
The problem with winnowing is that it doesn't encourage independent thought in terms of voting. Many voters, for various reasons, are simply going to vote for whomever the other states vote for. I think it's best to make people give serious thought to whom they vote fro and to vote without being influenced by others.
Still, the best compromise is to limit the primaries to two months.
Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
If the few GoP candidates you support talk a good game but vote in lockstep with the others 85% or more of the time, then they are probably supporting what you obviously don't and you shouldn't vote for them. Make sure to research anyone you intend to vote for if at all possible.
What do you think McConnell is doing wrong?
The guy's approval rating is so low that if it was a girl's age Roy Moore would be interested, so there may end up being a lot of answers to that one, but I'm interested in your take.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of the Democratic party, even moderate Republicans are getting called white nationalists.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/politic...319-story.html
Is anyone heralding the witnesses as heroes who wasn't already on their side?
The best course for party registration may depend on what type of state you live.
Would you still want the ability to have an impact in the primaries?
With the question of whether Rubin should have been seen as a journalist and whether suggesting otherwise is a burn, there seems to be a bit of a category error. The distinction between a journalist and a commentator is more about what they do than what they believe.
Someone can write an article for Mother Jones without being open to Republican ideas, but still meet rigorous fact-checking standards. The difference will mainly come to the finished type of product.
I don't think anyone ever expected Rubin to do weeks of independent research on something that might end up being a false lead, which journalists often end up doing.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
I prefer a system that was proposed a few years ago, where the primaries are over the course of several weeks, starting with the least populated states and working their way up until the really big ones are all at the end - unless there is already a runaway winner early on, then even the people at the end of the process would still matter.
Dark does not mean deep.
The current primary system was designed to get all the votes across the country to the convention at the same time. News was pretty slow back then.
We now know answers to things pretty instantaneously. I can't see a reason to not have a national primary outside of, "but that is how it was always done." In the end, it appears the motives of party are more important than the will of the people.
"Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium
There are a few reasons not to have a national primary. It is going to favor people who have high name recognition.
With a national primary, Obama would probably not have been the Democratic party's nominee in 2008, since Hillary led in national polling, typically by more than 12 points, until Obama won Iowa, which made the numbers closer.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...191.html#polls
There are some workarounds. There could be a ranked choice system. There could also be a two-step election, where if someone doesn't have a majority, there will be a runoff between the top two contenders.
There would still be some potential complications. In a national primary, there would need to be some uniform standards. Right now, some states have caucuses while others have primaries. Some have open primaries while others have closed. Registration lengths vary.
A positive benefit of uniform standards would be an arms race to have as many people voting as possible. Under current rules, it doesn't matter if a state has high turnout. That would change if the popular vote were what mattered.
I have no problem with changing it up.
One way to do it might be to go with a state that most clearly resembled the national popular vote in the previous election. In 2000, it was Oregon. In 2004, it was Ohio. In 2008 and 2012, it was Virginia. In 2016, it was Minnesota.
It's an improvement since there aren't two states with a culture of influencing national elections so early but it doesn't assure that the early primaries will be in diverse states (although the possibility can be preferable to the certainty of no change.)
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
To be honest I dont know much about current Mitch. I have to do more research. My anger at him comes from his constant support of Trump and Bevin. And His bad voting history on Gay rights and his harsh anti abortion stance.
I have been doing more reseach on differant political figures and watching more news programs. I watch meet the press, cnn, and even fox news. I want to be as informed as I can be before I vote next ear. I wasnt always involved in politics and didnt really care. I didnt care when I was younger and then I was in prison so ther was no point.
Then I was told by my caseworker in my halfway house that as felon i couldnt vote. That turned out to be her telling the men at the house they were not allowed to vote if she found out they wernt voting for Clinton.
This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.
Worth taking note of...
- https://slate.com/business/2019/11/e...e-for-all.html
Elizabeth Warren Admits That She Isn’t Really Going to Pass Single Payer
The only thing you need to know about the GOP is that their one and only interest is preserving the wealth and power of the plutocrat class, everything else they say or do is just deflection. Now if you think that one day you'll be a billionaire yourself and want to be able to party on yachts and pass money to your brood of entitled brats without paying for the public services that helped you get to where you are, then by all means vote for Republicans. Otherwise, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
And yes, in many respects the Democrats aren't much better, but they are better.