|
Post by Rael on Jan 24, 2024 17:40:19 GMT -5
I really think it is the opposite. If I want to run for president and there's a two week primary season, that means that I need the money to hirer a nationwide staff plus advertising in dozens of states simultaneously. To me, such a system makes it all but impossible for anyone not a billionaire or the pre-determined party favorite to even contemplate a major party run. What ever may be wrong with our system, staggering the primaries and starting in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada means it is possible for a candidate without money or name recognition to get out, meet the voters face to face, and compete. If they can then win or do well in one of these states, it helps them with fund raising and media attention in the following states. It worked for Carter, Clinton, and Obama although in the case of Clinton and Obama they already had some serious interest from with the party itself. Clinton did a lot of networking within the party as governor and Obama impressed a lot of people with his 2004 speech at the democratic convention. But, if you rerun the 2008 primary under your model, Hillary wins in a slam dunk. Interestingly, I can't really think of a GOP example because just about everyone except for Trump was from within the establishment and Trump obviously had huge name recognition going in. Candidates can advertise all they want (though I think we should begin restricting that as well, which would likely require an amendment). They can participate in pseudo debates various groups put on. But the rest of it, the primary voting, gets done between Memorial Day and June 15. It could be done without an amendment if the major parties set the rules. Break 'em and you can't get the nomination. I realize expecting today's political parties to be able to hold any kind of responsibility for that together is likely a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 24, 2024 17:42:38 GMT -5
I think it is left over from an era when travel was more difficult and telecommunications (radio) was still very new. In addition, the staggered primary system theoretically enables a lesser known candidate to emerge (think Jimmy Carter) in the sense that a candidate without a lot of money can go camp out in Iowa or New Hampshire, press the flesh, and gain notoriety via a strong finish. That is less likely in a national primary. It has also been somewhat negated by Super Tuesday which requires a candidate to have national reach i.e. money. It is worth remembering that in the 2008 democratic primary between Obama didn't secure the nomination until pretty late in the process so those late voting states did matter. If I was king of the world, I would do away with Super Tuesday because I do think it favors those candidates that can amass money. Also, the original idea behind Super Tuesday was that these states would gain more clout by combining their delegates into one contest. I think it sort of does the opposite. Finally, I actually think the longer process helps as it kind of gives voters a chance to really examine candidates under demanding circumstances over the course of an extended period. I think the entire primary season should be reduced to two weeks, held 5 months before the election. All the longer season does is increase the cost of running for office, essentially making candidates available to the highest bidder. Excellent ish ..... exactly on all counts.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 17:46:17 GMT -5
People here trying to suggest that abortion isn't going to be a major issue in this election are off their rockers
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 17:51:14 GMT -5
I really think it is the opposite. If I want to run for president and there's a two week primary season, that means that I need the money to hirer a nationwide staff plus advertising in dozens of states simultaneously. To me, such a system makes it all but impossible for anyone not a billionaire or the pre-determined party favorite to even contemplate a major party run. What ever may be wrong with our system, staggering the primaries and starting in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada means it is possible for a candidate without money or name recognition to get out, meet the voters face to face, and compete. If they can then win or do well in one of these states, it helps them with fund raising and media attention in the following states. It worked for Carter, Clinton, and Obama although in the case of Clinton and Obama they already had some serious interest from with the party itself. Clinton did a lot of networking within the party as governor and Obama impressed a lot of people with his 2004 speech at the democratic convention. But, if you rerun the 2008 primary under your model, Hillary wins in a slam dunk. Interestingly, I can't really think of a GOP example because just about everyone except for Trump was from within the establishment and Trump obviously had huge name recognition going in. Candidates can advertise all they want (though I think we should begin restricting that as well, which would likely require an amendment). They can participate in pseudo debates various groups put on. But the rest of it, the primary voting, gets done between Memorial Day and June 15. I hear ya but you're basically saying we're going to have a long election season but consolidated voting. If I'm running for POTUS in 2028 under your model, I'm going to be campaigning in big delegate states starting in mid 2027 because I have a lot of ground to cover in a very short period of time. The other thing your model would do, and maybe it's fine, is it would lead people to focus on the big states with high delegate counts. New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina are significant only because they're early primaries and isolated. If everything is condensed, California, New York, Texas, and Florida become the battleground and states like Maine, New Hampshire, or South Carolina become afterthoughts. Again, maybe that's the way it should be anyway but I actually think you're tilting the playing field toward big money and name recognition.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2024 18:30:47 GMT -5
I think the election could go either way still but as I've noted in the past, Biden never trailed Trump in the polling averages in 2020. So there are reasons for Dems to be concerned. Agree. If Republicans could drag themselves away from Trump and nominate Haley the election would be in the bag. But they'll need a few hail marys and some of Trump's election rigging tricks to pull off a win. Current polling data doesn't support this assertion. As noted the RCP average has Trump up on Biden 47.3-43.5. Haley leads Biden by only 41.8-40.7. SEE: www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/haley-vs-bidenIn addition, in the most current batch of polls, Biden leads in 3, and Haley leads in 3. Possibly this has to do with her remarks on the Civil War, but whatever the reason, she no longer has a meaningful lead on Biden. Trump does.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2024 18:35:03 GMT -5
Biden has vulnerabilities as well which I'm sure Soul will be quick to point out but Trump has a serious problem if a significant percentage of GOP voters and independents won't vote for him under any circumstance. Trump has a high floor of support (his MAGA base) but a low ceiling - one of the reasons that a third party candidate almost ensures a Trump victory. www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/politics/trump-independent-voters.htmlTrump's ceiling doesn't seem to be so low anymore. Multiple recent polls have him at or over 50%. Biden, on the other hand, is struggling to get above 40% on his approval rating, and it seems to be slipping further and further. At least at the moment, Biden's ceiling seems to be lower than Trump's.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 24, 2024 18:45:15 GMT -5
Biden has vulnerabilities as well which I'm sure Soul will be quick to point out but Trump has a serious problem if a significant percentage of GOP voters and independents won't vote for him under any circumstance. Trump has a high floor of support (his MAGA base) but a low ceiling - one of the reasons that a third party candidate almost ensures a Trump victory. www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/politics/trump-independent-voters.htmlTrump's ceiling doesn't seem to be so low anymore. Multiple recent polls have him at or over 50%. Biden, on the other hand, is struggling to get above 40% on his approval rating, and it seems to be slipping further and further. At least at the moment, Biden's ceiling seems to be lower than Trump's. Biden wasn't even on the ballot in New Hampshire and, via write in, he got 66% of the democratic vote. Trump got 52% of the GOP vote. ----
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 24, 2024 18:55:38 GMT -5
Biden has vulnerabilities as well which I'm sure Soul will be quick to point out but Trump has a serious problem if a significant percentage of GOP voters and independents won't vote for him under any circumstance. Trump has a high floor of support (his MAGA base) but a low ceiling - one of the reasons that a third party candidate almost ensures a Trump victory. www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/politics/trump-independent-voters.htmlTrump's ceiling doesn't seem to be so low anymore. Multiple recent polls have him at or over 50%. Biden, on the other hand, is struggling to get above 40% on his approval rating, and it seems to be slipping further and further. At least at the moment, Biden's ceiling seems to be lower than Trump's. I’m still skeptical that Trump can win the popular vote despite numerous national polls showing him ahead. But the electoral college is still in play and at a minimum, it’s shaping up to be another close election…
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2024 19:19:29 GMT -5
Trump's ceiling doesn't seem to be so low anymore. Multiple recent polls have him at or over 50%. Biden, on the other hand, is struggling to get above 40% on his approval rating, and it seems to be slipping further and further. At least at the moment, Biden's ceiling seems to be lower than Trump's. I’m still skeptical that Trump can win the popular vote despite numerous national polls showing him ahead. But the electoral college is still in play and at a minimum, it’s shaping up to be another close election… It's not just that they show Trump ahead. They show him over 50%, and Trump has a history of over-performing the polls. There are too many potential campaign killers out there on both sides to make any solid predictions for November right now. But if the election were held today, I think he would win the popular vote and handily win the electoral college. I think what's going on right now with Fani Willis is playing into this. It's just more evidence that the cases against him are bogus... and therefore the Democrats are using them to rig the election. Whether this is more boosting Trump or sinking the Democrats, I don't know. If her corruption blows up the Georgia cases, and its already hard to take Alvin Bragg's case in NYC seriously... that does not bode well for the public perception of the DOJ's cases either. If SCOTUS steps in and blows up the "obstructing an official proceeding" cases, that's probably going to be fatal for Jack Smith's DC cases, and that just leaves the Florida cases that Judge Cannon is overseeing. This may go like a string of dominoes. What do you think happens if Trump beats ALL of the criminal charges against him? I mean he would go into the election claiming the entire Democratic Party, the media apparatus it runs, and the deep state that brought all this lawfare against him to rig the election, and it is hopelessly corrupt and needs to be voted out of office. And it would be hard to argue it isn't - 90+ charges that ALL fail is pretty damning. If that happens (and fair enough that would be a LOT to happen), I think it calls into question the future of the Democratic Party as anything other than a regional party in places like California and New York.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 24, 2024 19:24:30 GMT -5
People here trying to suggest that abortion isn't going to be a major issue in this election are off their rockers Scary 💩
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Jan 24, 2024 19:27:21 GMT -5
Trump's ceiling doesn't seem to be so low anymore. Multiple recent polls have him at or over 50%. Biden, on the other hand, is struggling to get above 40% on his approval rating, and it seems to be slipping further and further. At least at the moment, Biden's ceiling seems to be lower than Trump's. I’m still skeptical that Trump can win the popular vote despite numerous national polls showing him ahead. But the electoral college is still in play and at a minimum, it’s shaping up to be another close election… Let's face it soul. The field has already been planted for our variation of 'hanging chads'. That's at minimum. ✌️
|
|
|
Post by upstream on Jan 25, 2024 9:28:08 GMT -5
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by upstream on Jan 25, 2024 9:32:38 GMT -5
I think yall need to be worried about Trump lasting through this campaign moreso than Biden. Smh. He’s about a month away from orange dye dripping down his ears.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 25, 2024 9:39:25 GMT -5
He's in much worse shape than Biden.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 25, 2024 12:40:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 25, 2024 12:52:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by upstream on Jan 25, 2024 14:43:30 GMT -5
Remember the last time Trump lost? How happy people were?? I think people forget about that.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 25, 2024 18:36:40 GMT -5
Remember the last time Trump lost? How happy people were?? I think people forget about that. My street exploded in rapturous joy. There was literally dancing in the streets. It made me think of the liberation of Paris.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 25, 2024 22:43:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 25, 2024 23:12:31 GMT -5
Second trip this week by the Biden administration to Wisconsin. They're showing their priorities early.
Biden won Wisconsin in 2020 by about 19,000 votes Trump won Wisconsin in 2020 by roughly 22,000 votes Obama won Wisconsin in 2016 by roughly 200,000 votes
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2024 7:25:03 GMT -5
Those numbers are atrocious... and two of them ought to scare the crap out of Biden's supporters: 1) The only group he polls above 50% with are people who've spent too much time in college. That number demonstrates how out of touch America's "elites" are with reality and everyone else. I can't imagine a better example of the old maxim: "We all know what BS is. MS is More of the Same. PhD is Piled higher and Deeper." 2) His worst showing is with young people. If the future of the country is against you 27-71, that's absolutely bleak for Biden and, indirectly, the Democrats. Trump's RCP job approval low point was about 37%, and it occurred in December of 2017 when most of the country was convinced he colluded with Vladimir Putin. Even his low right after January 6 was 39%. And Biden's numbers are being propped up by a media which is absolutely uninterested in Hunter's efforts to sell his dad's office and is desperately trying to convince people who don't have someone else go to the grocery store for them that the economy is fine. Which is part of the reason he manages to poll well with people who don't need to think that much about their finances. Biden's numbers are probably going to continue to deteriorate too. His cognitive decline isn't going to turn around, and his numbers are dropping even with the media doing everything they can to cover up his mistakes and prop up his policies. The opposite happened with Trump: his numbers trended upward over the course of his presidency even with the media doing everything they could to amplify his worst qualities and hide his successes.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 26, 2024 7:31:52 GMT -5
Everything I see about the economy is good news. What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 26, 2024 7:52:13 GMT -5
I’m no Biden fan but even I’m shocked by how bad that poll looks.
|
|
|
Post by carllafong on Jan 26, 2024 8:38:47 GMT -5
Everything I see about the economy is good news. What am I missing? THE POLLS!
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 26, 2024 8:56:00 GMT -5
I’m no Biden fan but even I’m shocked by how bad that poll looks. This is what I have been saying all along. Something just feels off with the Biden job approval stuff. Has he been great? No. but he's not this bad either.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Jan 26, 2024 9:05:16 GMT -5
I’m no Biden fan but even I’m shocked by how bad that poll looks. This is what I have been saying all along. Something just feels off with the Biden job approval stuff. Has he been great? No. but he's not this bad either. It's a bigger sample size than most polls and includes non-voters. And Pew has a good reputation. So I think it's a solid poll. Just worse than I expected. Most recent job approval polls have Biden in the high-30s to low-40s www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jan 26, 2024 9:07:07 GMT -5
I guess the right-wing narratives about him have worked.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 26, 2024 17:06:07 GMT -5
All hat, no cattle, like most GOP politicians. Pressed by team Trump, she'll fold faster than Superman on laundry day.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Jan 27, 2024 4:07:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michiganjoe on Jan 27, 2024 7:24:05 GMT -5
Key point from the opinion piece as far as I'm concerned. Difficult to see Trump winning absent a poor economy.
|
|