New York Primary [Archive] - Simple Living Forums

LDAHL

4-20-16, 9:09am

So what did we learn?

That identity politics still beats economic nationalism in the Democratic Party.

That insulting the voters is never a good tactical move, even for Republicans. But insulting the voters' intelligence can be a winning strategy.

That virtually nobody cares about what those foreigners are up to, unless they're trying to sneak in.

That the allure of free stuff is very powerful, but only among people who believe you can deliver.

Ultralight

4-20-16, 9:11am

Wait, you are supposed to learn from the electoral process?

LDAHL

4-20-16, 9:19am

Wait, you are supposed to learn from the electoral process?

Think of it as a large focus group to assist the parties in marketing their policies and candidates to the consumer. We've learned that resentment is big this season, but there are different flavors of resentment available.

Ultralight

4-20-16, 9:40am

That is an amusing perspective. haha

Ultralight

4-20-16, 10:40am

If Billary does get elected president that would probably pacify most people and preserve the status quo. Any of the others would cause unrest.

iris lilies

4-20-16, 11:48am

If Billary does get elected president that would probably pacify most people and preserve the status quo. Any of the others would cause unrest.
You know how certain Ive been about Hil becoming our next president.

well, that certainty is starting to crumble. trump is doing well again her in the poll reporting Ive heard. That is turning a corner.

Ultralight

4-20-16, 11:51am

:cool:
You know how certain Ive been about Hil becoming our next president.

well, that certainty is starting to crumble. trump is doing well again her in the poll reporting Ive heard. That is turning a corner.

LDAHL

4-20-16, 12:13pm

You know how certain Ive been about Hil becoming our next president.

well, that certainty is starting to crumble. trump is doing well again her in the poll reporting Ive heard. That is turning a corner.

I would suspect that in a Trump/Clinton match-up more Republicans would stay home out of disgust than Democrats. Especially now that she's triangulated so far to the left. That might work in Clinton's favor.

I find it interesting that the two party front runners are the ones with the highest negative approval ratings.

Williamsmith

4-20-16, 12:45pm

I would suspect that in a Trump/Clinton match-up more Republicans would stay home out of disgust than Democrats. Especially now that she's triangulated so far to the left. That might work in Clinton's favor.

I find it interesting that the two party front runners are the ones with the highest negative approval ratings.

I guess the electorate is trying to decide which one will provide more entertainment once they get in office. Will it be more fun to watch Hillary get impeached or Trump be the next victim of regime change.

creaker

4-20-16, 12:52pm

So what did we learn?

That in the New York primary, if you don't tie yourself to a party way before you have any idea who the candidates will be, you don't get to vote for them.

LDAHL

4-20-16, 2:04pm

That in the New York primary, if you don't tie yourself to a party way before you have any idea who the candidates will be, you don't get to vote for them.

That's true. In my state you can register at the polls, and vote in any primary you like (Although starting this year, we do need to produce a picture ID). I wonder how different the result might have been otherwise.

How far in advance do New Yorkers need to register their party preference?

creaker

4-20-16, 2:10pm

That's true. In my state you can register at the polls, and vote in any primary you like (Although starting this year, we do need to produce a picture ID). I wonder how different the result might have been otherwise.

How far in advance do New Yorkers need to register their party preference?

I think it was like last October - basically a while before the media would even mention Sanders.

LDAHL

4-20-16, 2:23pm

I think it was like last October - basically a while before the media would even mention Sanders.

Last October was a simpler more innocent time, wasn't it? Back then, I doubt the smart money would have credited Bernie with the electoral and fund-raising strength he's shown.

I can see the advantages of both approaches. On the one hand, open primaries give more people a voice in choosing candidates (although you do risk mischief like the infamous Chicago Crossover or Rush's Operation Chaos). On the other, political parties are in fact private organizations, and perhaps only people who have demonstrated some level of commitment should be part of their process.

Williamsmith

4-20-16, 2:55pm

Gregg

4-25-16, 9:55am

Maybe, the office of Presidency should be a part time job with no benefits at $7.25 per hour, no special secret service protection, expensive state dinners, Air Force none .......and all this money spent on elections could be put to better use. You know, something like jury duty......a pain in the ass.

I usually lean toward the other extreme and think the CEO of the world's largest corporation should also be the highest paid (if you want to attract the real talent, that is). As it is there isn't much incentive for the guys at the very top of the game to go into the public sector. And cost isn't an issue anyway as long as there's still no limit on the American express.

ApatheticNoMore

4-25-16, 12:13pm

You will attract the most mercenary that way anyway, everyone needs to live but more and more money will attract those whose reason for living is more and more money. And I'm not sure that's who I want going into professions I'd ideally want to be primarily about other motivations. Of course that already seems the case with the Presidency, although they aren't getting rich off the raw salary but speaking fees and so on - the Clinton's got rich off of Bill's presidency already. As does many a congressperson get rich through the revolving door etc.. And while more salary might help some forms of corruption (like an underpaid corrupt cop somewhere or something). I have my doubt its going to help there, that needs to be dealt with more directly I suspect.

jp1

4-25-16, 12:44pm

I've always figured that the most sociopathic person should be the ceo of the largest corporation. http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2015/04/why-a-disproportionate-number-of-ceos-are-psychopaths In today's world a fairly complete lack of empathy would seem to be a requirement for being a successful ceo of a medium to large sized company. Nobody would last long at the job if they got upset about all the middle class lives they ruined every time they shut down another factory and shipped the jobs off to a foreign country.

I remember years ago reading about another study where they tested little kids (like 9 or 10 years old) on their ability to lie. They had them present a glass of lemonade to an adult. The lemonade was terrible, and the kids knew it, but they were told to lie to the adult and pretend like it was delicious. The kids that were best at lying when presenting the lemonade were the ones that were the leaders in the classroom.

bae

4-25-16, 1:01pm

On the other, political parties are in fact private organizations, and perhaps only people who have demonstrated some level of commitment should be part of their process.

I think this is a crucial point. The political parties have no official governmental standing. They are no more than political social clubs. It is quite reasonable of them to have rules in place to keep random people off the street from flooding into their clubhouse and hijacking their club.

I am curious why the various state auditor/election offices allow their resources to be used to run the elections for a private organization. Do they typically charge the parties for their services? I know when the governmental entity I am elected to needs to hold a special election of any sort, we get charged by the County for the election.

ApatheticNoMore

4-25-16, 3:05pm

If your private social club was actually that then whenever. But I don't think it's a very accurate analogy for political parties. When your private club is the only club that has any possibility of holding power that rules over EVERYONE else regardless of whether they are members of your club (only Dems and Reps can possibly win most offices if we are realistic), yea I don't think it's a private club or any such thing anymore.

I think it's much less like a social club and much more like a corporation that is a monopoly and is the only way people can get some necessary good (for example: electricity or natural gas). Consider it a monopoly on political rather than literal power. And then no, it needs to be regulated for the common good at that point. It can't be left free to do whatever it wants. And political parties are a duopoly that should be subject to regulation as well. Or maybe we could just use antitrust to break them up entirely (oh if only it was possible :)).

iris lilies

4-25-16, 3:11pm

I want to point out to everybody who who doesnt bother to vote because the big two do not please them, that a third party makes inroads into tical power by gathering votes. Resources are allocated to,third parties based off n what percentage of the popular vote they received at a previous election n.

I am vague about the details because it has been years since I read up on it. But the Libertarian Party, for instance, will benefit from your vote even if it doesnt put one of them intoi the White House.

LDAHL

4-25-16, 3:54pm

I think this is a crucial point. The political parties have no official governmental standing. They are no more than political social clubs. It is quite reasonable of them to have rules in place to keep random people off the street from flooding into their clubhouse and hijacking their club.

I am curious why the various state auditor/election offices allow their resources to be used to run the elections for a private organization. Do they typically charge the parties for their services? I know when the governmental entity I am elected to needs to hold a special election of any sort, we get charged by the County for the election.

I believe that historically it has been the States imposing primaries on the parties rather than the other way around.

JaneV2.0

4-25-16, 4:05pm

I understand one of the Koch brothers is leaning toward Ms. Clinton. Now there's an endorsement! !thumbsup!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/

LDAHL

4-25-16, 5:32pm

iris lilies

4-25-16, 7:08pm

jp1

4-26-16, 10:26am

I understand one of the Koch brothers is leaning toward Ms. Clinton. Now there's an endorsement! !thumbsup!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/

He said "We would have to believe her actions would be quite different from her rhetoric."

I suspect many Bernie supporters are finding themselves in agreement with him on this point.

thats gotta make some heads explode

Thinking of Loosechickens who loved to invoke the Koch bros as the ultimate evil..

It's not making my head explode, but it is making me aware that despite all her recent Bernie-posturing that Williamsmith wrote about on the thread about her, Hillary will never be a progressive and is only saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected.

JaneV2.0

4-26-16, 10:35am

I suspect many Bernie supporters are finding themselves in agreement with him on this point.

It's not making my head explode, but it is making me aware that despite all her recent Bernie-posturing that Williamsmith wrote about on the thread about her, Hillary will never be a progressive and is only saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected.

Much like her husband who turned the Democratic Party into Republican lite, with NAFTA, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, among other SNAFUs. They love the power and wealth that comes from being lapdogs.

LDAHL

4-26-16, 10:45am

It's not making my head explode, but it is making me aware that despite all her recent Bernie-posturing that Williamsmith wrote about on the thread about her, Hillary will never be a progressive and is only saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected.

As I watch the primary results tonight, this may be my one source of comfort.

jp1

4-26-16, 11:14am

While it certainly appears to be true that Hillary just wants her presidency to be Obama v. 2.0 - the lady warrior edition, it is entirely possible that, just as LGBT activists forced Obama to actually exert some effort to get DADT repealed and to stop defending the obviously unconstitutional DOMA, supporters of various parts of Bernie's agenda may well be able to insist that Hillary actually act on some of the pieces of her purported agenda.

Gregg

4-28-16, 10:50am

He said "We would have to believe her actions would be quite different from her rhetoric."

I can't speak for Mr. Koch, but I, for one, DO believe her actions will be quite different from her rhetoric.