Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can someone explain to me why, in 2022, we still have caucuses at all? They seem so antiquated.
    I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Swansong View Post
      Can someone explain to me why, in 2022, we still have caucuses at all? They seem so antiquated.
      They are supposed to be more direct democracy than primaries because representatives for the candidates give a pitch before the voting. In practice, though, they are awful. They aren't a New England town meeting, they're the parties forcing the results they want.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

        They are supposed to be more direct democracy than primaries because representatives for the candidates give a pitch before the voting. In practice, though, they are awful. They aren't a New England town meeting, they're the parties forcing the results they want.
        Yep. I have been to a couple of ours and they are a joke. (my dad uses harsher words)

        I dont mind one of Iowa and NH being in the first two but not both.
        "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
        -aparch

        "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
        -INCH

        Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
        -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

        Comment


        • Yeah, that's the thing. It would be lovely if we were a small country and people had time and wherewithal to spend several hours meeting and discussing with the actual candidates, but 1820 was a long time ago and we don't have that anymore.
          I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

          Comment


          • If we wanted a truly representative primary to start the Democratic process it would be CA. But we can't have that for the same reason we can't abolish the EC. We have an entitled minority that has always been celebrated as somehow more legitimate than the rest of us, even though that is at best complete bullsh-t and more likely not even hidden racism.
            Last edited by Kepler; 08-05-2022, 04:13 PM.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
              If we wanted a truly representative primary to start the Democratic process it would be CA. But we can't have that for the same reason we can't abolish the EC. We have an entitled minority that has always been celebrated as somehow more legitimate than the rest of us, even though that is at best complete bullsh-t and more likely not even hidden racism.
              The classic reason I have always heard about avoiding California to start is it would be extremely expensive to mount a campaign (between travel and advertising). That would limit the number of candidates that could truly mount a campaign and the "lesser-known" (and lesser funded) candidates that might be a great fit would not even have a chance.

              Does that argument still hold true today? I'm not sure.

              Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?
              North Dakota
              National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post

                The classic reason I have always heard about avoiding California to start is it would be extremely expensive to mount a campaign (between travel and advertising). That would limit the number of candidates that could truly mount a campaign and the "lesser-known" (and lesser funded) candidates that might be a great fit would not even have a chance.

                Does that argument still hold true today? I'm not sure.

                Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?
                Thing is I don't even think you do a traditional primary campaign anymore, as hearing about a candidate from your friend's social media is FAR more retail than a nonsense photo op rushed around by staffers and advance men.

                I'd like to see purple states with 1+ big city and significant burbs and some rural sections, so I am thinking: PA, AZ, GA to give a good regional mix. The northeast is too urban. The prairie is too rural. CO could be a possibility but it's REALLY white and it's a state like VA where the Dems who live there are all college educated and wealthy so you aren't getting a cross-section, you're just getting the social stratum that will vote for you anyway.

                You need states that have a large number of working class Dems. Actually that probably nixes AZ, too. So we're back to CA.
                Last edited by Kepler; 08-05-2022, 04:36 PM.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post

                  Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?
                  I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.

                  Cornell '04, Stanford '06


                  KDR

                  Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
                  iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
                  gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
                  Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
                  Miss Thundercat That's it, you win.
                  TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
                  DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.

                  Test to see if I can add this.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by French Rage View Post

                    I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.
                    It's not representative at all, though, because the demographic split mirrors the partisan split. MD Dems are VA Dems. They are DC bureaucrats with education. They have no relationship to the rest of their states respectively. They are civilized oases in deserts of Republican rural stupidity.

                    At least there are black rural Democrats in GA, and brown rural Democrats in CA, NV, and even TX. But MD Dems are carpetbaggers from Yale.
                    Cornell University
                    National Champion 1967, 1970
                    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

                      Thing is I don't even think you do a traditional primary campaign anymore, as hearing about a candidate from your friend's social media is FAR more retail than a nonsense photo op rushed around by staffers and advance men.
                      This is certainly a fair point. However, convincing a bunch of old traditionalists that modern candidates have bucked tradition and no longer run a traditional campaign, may be difficult. Maybe in a couple cycles.

                      Originally posted by Kepler
                      I'd like to see purple states with 1+ big city and significant burbs and some rural sections, so I am thinking: PA, AZ, GA to give a good regional mix. The northeast is too urban. The prairie is too rural. CO could be a possibility but it's REALLY white and it's a state like VA where the Dems who live there are all college educated and wealthy so you aren't getting a cross-section, you're just getting the social stratum that will vote for you anyway.

                      You need states that have a large number of working class Dems. Actually that probably nixes AZ, too. So we're back to CA.
                      I agree with purple states, it makes a lot of sense. I'd be fine with swapping Nevada for Arizona. FWIW, I'd also be fine with California. I just don't see them getting the nod right now.

                      As a Colorado citizen, I agree with your assessment to some extent. Colorado is very white, but about 1/4 of the white population is Hispanic. It's certainly not as diverse as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, or California. However, it's not like it's Iowa or New Hampshire. Ultimately, for the "West" primary, I'd prefer one of the more diverse purple states (Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico).
                      North Dakota
                      National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by French Rage View Post

                        I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.
                        I had not really thought about Maryland as an option. Do you know if Maryland applied to be one of the early primaries?
                        North Dakota
                        National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                        Comment


                        • I looked it up. 16 states (plus Puerto Rico) applied:

                          Colorado
                          Connecticut
                          Delaware
                          Georgia
                          Illinois
                          Iowa
                          Maryland
                          Michigan
                          Minnesota
                          Nebraska
                          Nevada
                          New Hampshire
                          New Jersey
                          Oklahoma
                          South Carolina
                          Washington

                          That's who to choose from (at least for the 2024 cycle).
                          North Dakota
                          National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                            As a Colorado citizen, I agree with your assessment to some extent. Colorado is very white, but about 1/4 of the white population is Hispanic. It's certainly not as diverse as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, or California. However, it's not like it's Iowa or New Hampshire. Ultimately, for the "West" primary, I'd prefer one of the more diverse purple states (Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico).
                            You certainly know more about CO than I. I have only been in Colorado Springs. I've not even been to Denver. My impression from The Industry's presence in places like Aurora and Colorado Springs is the suburbs, other than Boulder, are megachurch country club Cheney Republican. I did not realize CO had a large Latino population -- are they rural farm workers, and are they Dems? Are they unionized or fighting for it like NV? Maybe CO could be a possibility after all. t's the right size, since the other choice TX is too big.
                            Last edited by Kepler; 08-05-2022, 05:03 PM.
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment


                            • My picks from those are GA and NV.

                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

                                You certainly know more about CO than I, as I have only been in Colorado Springs. I've not even been to Denver. My impression from The Industry's presence in places like Aurora and Colorado Springs is the suburbs are megachurch country club Cheney Republican, other than Boulder. I did not realize CO had a large Latino population -- are they rural farm workers, and are they Dems? Are they unionized or fighting for it like NV? Maybe CO could be a possibility after all. it's the right size, since the other choice TX is too big.
                                Colorado Springs up to about Castle Rock is pretty conservative, with a pretty large "megachurch" type presence (along with a very large military presence). As you noted, Cheney Republicans. I believe Douglas County (where Castle Rock is located, along with a portion of Parker) was the "richest county in America" for a period of time. I'm not sure if it still is, or where it ranks nationally, but it is still probably the wealthiest area of Colorado.

                                Eastern plains Colorado is hyper-conservative...your Trump/Gun-Humpers.

                                Western Colorado is fairly libertarian; however, there is a mix of gun-humpers (think Boebert).

                                Denver Metro and Aurora (also part of the Denver metro) are pretty liberal (Aurora has changed considerably over the past decade or so...it used to be pretty conservative). Boulder is hyper-liberal. Fort Collins is a mix.

                                As for the Latino population, it constitutes about 1/5 of the state's population as a whole, predominately found along the Front Range (Fort Collins down to Pueblo). Latinos are split about 70/30 Dem vs Republican.

                                Unions in Colorado are almost non-existent...probably somewhere north of 5% but less than 10%.
                                North Dakota
                                National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X