All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Robotman]

This is true for anyone not named Biden. Biden's strategy is to withstand the early states and have the Southern states be a fire wall. Bernie and Warren's (and to a MUCH lesser extent Buttigieg) are banking on winning Iowa, having that fall into a NH win, having that close the gap to make it a race and then start building leads in the closer states to minimize the South.

I also will say, I don't feel comfortable with a candidate who's strength is in the South. Those states simply don't go blue in the general. Clinton had a similar issue. She won on the strength of the South. Then got into a general, lost every single state there, and then struggled where she struggled in the primary and it opened up a path for Trump.

In previous elections this would be true but current polls have Biden neck and neck with Trump in Texas. If that southern state goes blue it’s all over for the republicans.

[Tami]

In previous elections this would be true but current polls have Biden neck and neck with Trump in Texas. If that southern state goes blue it’s all over for the republicans.

I think, this year, Iowa may not be as important as it usually is. The news media might think so, but the voters might not latch on to the Iowa winner so easily.

Only time will tell.

[Theleviathan]

This is true for anyone not named Biden. Biden's strategy is to withstand the early states and have the Southern states be a fire wall. Bernie and Warren's (and to a MUCH lesser extent Buttigieg) are banking on winning Iowa, having that fall into a NH win, having that close the gap to make it a race and then start building leads in the closer states to minimize the South.

I also will say, I don't feel comfortable with a candidate who's strength is in the South. Those states simply don't go blue in the general. Clinton had a similar issue. She won on the strength of the South. Then got into a general, lost every single state there, and then struggled where she struggled in the primary and it opened up a path for Trump.

I agree with you mostly about the strategies, but let's be clear about something:

Hillary won everywhere. She won by 12%. By 3 million votes. I don't believe this primary will be at all "similar" to the shellacking Bernie got across the country. While being strong in the south may not be an advantage, being able to scoop up California and Oregon isn't much of an advantage either because those states would go blue if a turtle was on the ballot.

What ultimately matters are the swing states. Which Democrat can deliver some combo of OH, PA, FL, WI, MI, AZ, NV, CO, MN, IA, VA, NC, etc. That has been, and remains, my biggest issue with Bernie. I see one state he could flip in that group and several he could lose (that Hillary won) based on current polling. Bernie winning in Iowa would be to his credit in that area, but even then I don't see Bernie carrying that state in the general....so what does it matter?

[Theleviathan]

Efforts to increase participation in primaries would arguably matter more because it's possible to triple participation in a way that doesn't apply to federal elections (It's mathematically impossible to triple 60%.)

Primary participation is meaningful since it can have more of an impact. The 19,743,821 votes for Ross Perot in the 1992 general election did not matter as much for getting an outsider elected President as 14,015,993 votes for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primary.

By the time November comes along, a lot of the races are settled. If you live in Washington (picking a random state for an example), the Senator is probably going to be a Democrat. The presidential votes are probably going to a Democrat (and if it's not, it's part of a Republican landslide.) If you're in the eighth congressional district, the congressional race may be competitive, but the other nine aren't (six Democratic seats; three Republican.) Your vote can make significantly more of an impact in local primaries, where you're going to be directly affected by the issues under consideration, and probably more familiar with the topics.

I'm curious about the argument that the national general election is more meaningful- it can be made, but it isn't articulated much. The nomination process is a sorting mechanism that allows voters to focus on 2 finalists in November (3 in rare situations) rather than all the people who might run in a primary, but that seems to be more of a bug than a feature. It cements problems with the system, including the way we pay more attention to national races than the local races where we can have greater impact.

First, your argument is double dipping. Yes, right now with less participation, more votes would impact. But if your argument is to increase participation, you'll also reduce vote impact.

Second, primaries are rife with issues the national election day doesn't have. Each state has wildly different rules about who, how, and when people vote. It'd be nearly impossible to streamline all of that into one coherent voting system. On top of that, primary voting days only impact the election for another more meaningful election to come. National voting day is when you not only vote for the President, or your Senator, but also your local judges, sheriffs, school referendums, state reps, etc. That ballot is filled with impactful races up and down our levels of government. Your appearance to vote one time has a ripple of effects. Your appearance to vote in the primary may mean very little in an already limited capacity.

Allowing people the ability to comfortably vote on national election day has the most wide ranging impacts, promotes civil participation at it's deepest level, and prevents the sorts of shenanigans the parties (mostly Republicans) try to employ. The day you vote in the primary you make one narrow choice. Election day is about a broad number of choices that impact all levels of the communities you belong to. The importance isn't even close.

[mathew101281]

What ultimately matters are the swing states. Which Democrat can deliver some combo of OH, PA, FL, WI, MI, AZ, NV, CO, MN, IA, VA, NC, etc. That has been, and remains, my biggest issue with Bernie. I see one state he could flip in that group and several he could lose (that Hillary won) based on current polling. Bernie winning in Iowa would be to his credit in that area, but even then I don't see Bernie carrying that state in the general....so what does it matter?

This is what really matters. This is what every voter has to realize. It’s about which swing state your candidate can win. Racking up numbers on the coasts aren’t going to win you the presidency. Liking a particular candidate doesn’t mean much if he/she can’t turn any swing states.

[Mister Mets]

First, your argument is double dipping. Yes, right now with less participation, more votes would impact. But if your argument is to increase participation, you'll also reduce vote impact.

Second, primaries are rife with issues the national election day doesn't have. Each state has wildly different rules about who, how, and when people vote. It'd be nearly impossible to streamline all of that into one coherent voting system. On top of that, primary voting days only impact the election for another more meaningful election to come. National voting day is when you not only vote for the President, or your Senator, but also your local judges, sheriffs, school referendums, state reps, etc. That ballot is filled with impactful races up and down our levels of government. Your appearance to vote one time has a ripple of effects. Your appearance to vote in the primary may mean very little in an already limited capacity.

Allowing people the ability to comfortably vote on national election day has the most wide ranging impacts, promotes civil participation at it's deepest level, and prevents the sorts of shenanigans the parties (mostly Republicans) try to employ. The day you vote in the primary you make one narrow choice. Election day is about a broad number of choices that impact all levels of the communities you belong to. The importance isn't even close.

Primary elections can be made into statewide holidays, so that would preserve the state's prerogative in determining different structures (IE- one state can have runoff elections) in a way that national primary elections wouldn't.

With primaries, a smaller change in participation will have a greater impact. At the moment, it's low-hanging fruit.

Most primaries do have votes for multiple offices. And the votes can be more meaningful if this is where the election is determined. Looking at Washington state, as just one example, it does seem nine out of ten congressional seats, the electoral votes for the presidential election and the two Senate seats are usually settled by the general election.

Participation in primaries is nice but they hardly matter if people aren't also allowed to cast their vote on election day. A holiday would help. Any arguments to the contrary are just people concerned about more people voting for candidates they don't like.

I certainly don't advocate making it easier to vote in primaries than general elections. It does seem that the policies that apply in one situation should apply in the other (with the exception that party registration restrictions are fine in primaries, although it does seem it should be as easy to change party registration as it is to register to vote).

There are other reasons to be concerned about making election day a holiday than the belief people you don't like will win. If you think it's unlikely to make a difference and not worth the time, money and effort, you'll make an argument to the contrary.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

In previous elections this would be true but current polls have Biden neck and neck with Trump in Texas. If that southern state goes blue it’s all over for the republicans.

Please don't bet on Texas. It's been supposed to turn blue my entire life. It's not happening and if that's the gamble it puts you in the whole just like Florida did in 2016

[Mister Mets]

I actually agree, however, if Bernie wins Iowa the Media is going to go nuts fro Bernie (unfortunately). They might make it seem like the Primary season is over right there and then. Forget about the other states.

If Bernie wins Iowa, it's still going to be a close race. The media is probably going to depict it that way because it's the truth and it's the more exciting story.

Democrats would be much better served organizing their primary around states that are hard blue and swing states. Get an idea of the temperature in the states you need to win and hold before you decide a primary on states that won't help you. Does it marginalize some Democrats? Yes. But the alternative puts the party in an uncomfortable position where someone might win a primary and then the rest of the party is asked to pick up the slack of those states with a candidate they were never enthusiastic about.

Or even start with the swing states. Have someone start out being able to say "I have support where we need to win", then let the Democratic strongholds decide it, and if there is a need to go down to the wire, then have the South be the tiebreaker at the end when we have all the information on who can win where.

There's something gross about ignoring the southern states where the majority of voters are primary African-Americans.

What works in hard blue states might also not persuade in the swing states.

There is also the question of how you determine a swing state. Iowa and Ohio went for Obama and Trump. Are these swing states, even if Georgia and Arizona were closer?

Parties also benefit from the infrastructure that comes with presidential campaigns. Alabama has a Democratic Senator. Kansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Montana have Democratic Governors.

[Theleviathan]

Primary elections can be made into statewide holidays, so that would preserve the state's prerogative in determining different structures (IE- one state can have runoff elections) in a way that national primary elections wouldn't.

With primaries, a smaller change in participation will have a greater impact.

Most primaries do have votes for multiple offices. And the votes can be more meaningful if this is where the election is determined. Looking at Washington state, as just one example, it does seem nine out of ten congressional seats, the electoral votes for the presidential election and the two Senate seats are usually settled by the general election.



I certainly don't advocate making it easier to vote in primaries than general elections. It does seem that the policies that apply in one situation should apply in the other (with the exception that party registration restrictions are fine in primaries, although it does seem it should be as easy to change party registration as it is to register to vote).

There are other reasons to be concerned about making election day a holiday than the belief people you don't like will win. If you think it's unlikely to make a difference and not worth the time, money and effort, you'll make an argument to the contrary.

I don't care what happens in Washington or Mississippi. Hence why a national day makes the most sense. We cant fix or cure each state's idiosynchrosies but we can allow for broader opportunity for civil engagement. There is no downside but fear of political fallout.

That fallout, whatever it is, would be a truer reflection of what our nation believes anyway.

[GindyPosts]

I don't care what happens in Washington or Mississippi. Hence why a national day makes the most sense. We cant fix or cure each state's idiosynchrosies but we can allow for broader opportunity for civil engagement. There is no downside but fear of political fallout.

That fallout, whatever it is, would be a truer reflection of what our nation believes anyway.

"But... Primaries!"

That's the whole foundation of Mets and his reasoning against making Election Day a paid holiday. State primaries ARE eclectic and some states have stranger policies than others, but at least with a national holiday for Election Day, it would make things easier in the grand scheme. We'd solve the primary issue on their terms, so, again, I fail to see the problem besides "PRIMARIES!" It's a straw man argument.

[Malvolio]

Trump Ups Iran Accusations As Questions Mount About Justification

Trump told Fox News that Iranian militants had planned attacks on four U.S. embassies hours after Secretary Pompeo said the U.S. didn’t know when or where there would be attacks. So, who's telling the truth, and who's lying like there's no tomorrow? Speaking of falsehoods....

**********

Trump Official Spreads False Information While Defending Soleimani Assassination

White House press aide Hogan Gidley claimed the U.S. killed Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and said Osama bin Laden was killed without congressional approval. Keep on lying, guys. It's what your administration does best.

**********

Rep. Doug Collins Walks Back Claim That Democrats Love Terrorists

The Georgia Republican posted a five-part Twitter thread apologizing and citing his Iraq War experience. Oh, WBEEEEEEEE....

**********

New Poll Shows It’s Anybody’s Race In Iowa

Sanders rises and Buttigieg falls, but no candidate has a clear edge in the first contest of the Democratic primary.

**********

Former White House Officials Call For Return Of Regular Press Briefing

It’s been more than 300 days since the White House press secretary gave an official briefing. Why both if all we'll get are lies, fabrications and falsehoods?

I agree with that last point. There are reporters out there who like to ask "zingers" even when they know they won't get a straight answer because they think it impresses the other reporters. It's sort of like weather reporters going out in a hurricane. We've got satellites and Doppler radar; we don't need reporters to risk their lives to report on a storm. And we don't need White House press conferences if they're used merely to spread propaganda.

[Malvolio]

I don't care what happens in Washington or Mississippi. Hence why a national day makes the most sense. We cant fix or cure each state's idiosynchrosies but we can allow for broader opportunity for civil engagement. There is no downside but fear of political fallout.

That fallout, whatever it is, would be a truer reflection of what our nation believes anyway.

The only places where it would matter to make the primaries a holiday are districts where candidates routinely run unopposed in November, making the primary the de-facto real election. But you can't always know ahead of time if the candidate of the dominant party will run unopposed.

[Theleviathan]

"But... Primaries!"

That's the whole foundation of Mets and his reasoning against making Election Day a paid holiday. State primaries ARE eclectic and some states have stranger policies than others, but at least with a national holiday for Election Day, it would make things easier in the grand scheme. We'd solve the primary issue on their terms, so, again, I fail to see the problem besides "PRIMARIES!" It's a straw man argument.

I like this post, but I especially lile the simple point of this: why not both? But first, let's focus on addressing the whole nation before we dive into every state's weirdness.

Shielding the logic of a national holiday behind some unclear primary complaint is a strawman. Flimsy one at that.

[Robotman]

Please don't bet on Texas. It's been supposed to turn blue my entire life. It's not happening and if that's the gamble it puts you in the whole just like Florida did in 2016

I would never count on Texas to be the road to winning an election. But the fact that it’s in play and Biden is actually leading in a few polls is interesting.

[Gray Lensman]

I would never count on Texas to be the road to winning an election. But the fact that it’s in play and Biden is actually leading in a few polls is interesting.

Until proven otherwise, the best strategy for 'red but trending blue' states IMO is to force the Republicans to spend money on them they otherwise wouldn't. But never count on them.