I have to admit I'm surprised at the size of Sanders' wins yesterday.

I have to admit I'm surprised at the size of Sanders' wins yesterday.

It's because he chose the bird as his running mate.

It's because he chose the bird as his running mate.

Heh. Caucus states will always favor idealism over pragmatism.

Heh. Caucus states will always favor idealism over pragmatism.

I'm not even sure I know what that means.

Heh. Caucus states will always favor idealism over pragmatism.

 

I'm not even sure I know what that means.

 

"Heh" is a brief muted laugh.

I have to admit I'm surprised at the size of Sanders' wins yesterday.

Hilary basically ignored Washington, sanders sprang a ton of money in Washington, the amount of Bernie ads being run was absurd.

 

Alaska? That's barely even a state.

"Heh" is a brief muted laugh.

Thanks for clearing that up. Alles klar herr kommisar.

I'm not even sure I know what that means.

It means that it wasn't the bird. It means it's not surprising Bernie wins in caucus states.

It means that it wasn't the bird. It means it's not surprising Bernie wins in caucus states.

So caucuses are idealistic and primaries are pragmatic? That is the implication of your earlier post. I'm trying to grasp that dichotomy.

So caucuses are idealistic and primaries are pragmatic? That is the implication of your earlier post. I'm trying to grasp that dichotomy.

It's great in theory, but caucuses are undemocratic. They appeal to an idealistic populace who think these townhall discussion of politics and selecting candidates is a superior method.

So caucuses are idealistic and primaries are pragmatic? That is the implication of your earlier post. I'm trying to grasp that dichotomy.

The caucus process is much more involved and requires a time dedication many can't or won't participate in. That means the resulting people who participate are more involved and probably more idealistic in nature. That's right in Sanders' wheelhouse. The caucus process generally dissuades moderates and independents from participating at all, the most pragmatic section of the voting base. That's right in Clinton's wheelhouse.

The caucus process is much more involved and requires a time dedication many can't or won't participate in. That means the resulting people who participate are more involved and probably more idealistic in nature. That's right in Sanders' wheelhouse. The caucus process generally dissuades moderates and independents from participating at all, the most pragmatic section of the voting base. That's right in Clinton's wheelhouse.

See, I think there comes a point when caring about the future (as opposed to say, the next quarterly report or the next campaign) actually becomes the pragmatic response. Given both the geoscience and geopolitical situations we've gotten into, revising the base philosophy ain't such a bad idea.

Edited March 27, 201610 yr by Craig Arko

 

See, I think there comes a point when caring about the future (as opposed to say, the next quarterly report or the next campaign) actually becomes the pragmatic response. Given both the geoscience and geopolitical situations we've gotten into, revising the base philosophy ain't such a bad idea.

But how do caucuses do that? 

But how do caucuses do that?

 

I don't claim that they do. But then, I'm not the one making the distinction that one method is 'idealistic' and the other is 'pragmatic.'

 

If it was Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie Sanders, would that distinction still have been an issue worth mentioning?

 

And by the way, should Senator Warren enter the race at any point, I'd support her over all the other candidates. It just so happens she's too smart to get pulled into the upcoming Presidential black hole.

 

I don't claim that they do. But then, I'm not the one making the distinction that one method is 'idealistic' and the other is 'pragmatic.'

If it was Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie Sanders, would that distinction still have been an issue worth mentioning?

And by the way, should Senator Warren enter the race at any point, I'd support her over all the other candidates. It just so happens she's too smart to get pulled into the upcoming Presidential black hole.

Yes, it would have. It doesn't matter who the candidate is, really. Caucuses are not a democratic process and are usually attended by those with more idealistic approaches. In this case, though, Sanders is the candidate and that does describe his base.

 

And as for Warren, so would I have supported her over any of the others.

And further, if the Dems retake the Senate, I want her to be the majority leader ... but I think they'll give it to someone like Schumer, which would be okay. Anything is better than a Reid-type leader. 

Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/26/20000-sign-petition-allow-guns-republican-national-convention/82289342/

I can see some benefits to a hotly contested, heavily armed Republican convention.....

Caucuses are deeply flawed, you are asking people to spend hours out of their own day to "participate" in a caucus, which eliminates a large amount of the population, (Pretty much anyone with kids, anyone who works a lot of hours etc) it comes down to retired people and college students for the most part, which aren't a good cross section of the "public" when it comes down to it. We should have went to a popular vote a long time ago anyways. Stats already have enough "fairness" seeing how each one gets two senators. The idea that elections often come down to people in Florida or Ohio is insane.

Edited March 28, 201610 yr by DaveW

I can see some benefits to a hotly contested, heavily armed Republican convention.....

My wife, not usually the wag her husband thinks himself to be, muttered "fish in a barrel" the other day when this was on the news.

There are actual bird truthers out there, claiming the bird was trained.......

 

When do we discuss issues?

We should have went to a popular vote a long time ago anyways. Stats already have enough "fairness" seeing how each one gets two senators. The idea that elections often come down to people in Florida or Ohio is insane.

Conversely, if you enjoyed "hanging chads" and similar memes concerning Florida in November-December 2000, you would have gone wild with joy had that election been contested purely on popular vote. We might still be awaiting the final winner of that election, as lawsuit after lawsuit at the precinct level in every state in the nation was fought.

 

Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/26/20000-sign-petition-allow-guns-republican-national-convention/82289342/

 

A duel would be entertaining. Trump doesn't seem like a guy who knows how to fire a gun though, he seems like a guy who knows how to hire mobsters to do it for him. Cruz seems like he's hunted a time or two, by hunting I mean the kind where the animal is trapped in a fence and chained to a stake. Neither Burr nor Hamilton (RIP) ended up becoming president, this could work.

 

A duel would be entertaining. Trump doesn't seem like a guy who knows how to fire a gun though, he seems like a guy who knows how to hire mobsters to do it for him. Cruz seems like he's hunted a time or two, by hunting I mean the kind where the animal is trapped in a fence and chained to a stake. Neither Burr nor Hamilton (RIP) ended up becoming president, this could work.

I'd hate to be the responsible janitor(s).

 

Conversely, if you enjoyed "hanging chads" and similar memes concerning Florida in November-December 2000, you would have gone wild with joy had that election been contested purely on popular vote. We might still be awaiting the final winner of that election, as lawsuit after lawsuit at the precinct level in every state in the nation was fought.

How so? Gore had over 500,000 more votes than Bush overall, while it certainly was "close" it was a full half percentage point.

How so? Gore had over 500,000 more votes than Bush overall, while it certainly was "close" it was a full half percentage point.

Many jurisdictions have automatic recounts when an election is as close as that. And there would be huge incentive to scrutinize every vote in every precinct where the automatic option doesn't exist. Half a percent could go the other way quite easily, upon inspection. Diehards in red states would demand proof there were no voting irregularities in blue states, and vice versa. Therefore, you can bet the process would happen.

I despise the electoral college. It is not 1784 anymore, where we couldn't count things quickly across a nation.......hate it. Waste of time and money.

 

Many jurisdictions have automatic recounts when an election is as close as that. And there would be huge incentive to scrutinize every vote in every precinct where the automatic option doesn't exist. Half a percent could go the other way quite easily, upon inspection. Diehards in red states would demand proof there were no voting irregularities in blue states, and vice versa. Therefore, you can bet the process would happen.

But still 500,000 votes is a lot to make up/find missing etc Yeah it probably would have taken some time, but that's fine, it already did take some time and essentially the supreme court were the ones who chose/picked Bush as the winner that year.

 

I despise the electoral college. It is not 1784 anymore, where we couldn't count things quickly across a nation.......hate it. Waste of time and money.

"Counting things quickly" isn't a reason for the electoral college.

 

 

 

"Counting things quickly" isn't a reason for the electoral college.

 

What is the justification in this day and age? It is a waste of time and money. Why should we artificially assign votes based on winner take all states? There is no reason to do that, not that I can think of. Why not just use the popular vote?

 

Right now, 4-6 states are up for grabs, year after year. Those 4-6 state decide who the president is, even if every person in NY and CA votes for 1 candidate. That seems like a violation of "every vote counts the same" to me.