Calling yourself "the anti-Trump" would sound/be arrogant; gather very nasty attention (and worse) from rabid Trumpers; set yourself up for serious comments about being the actual anti-Christ to God's appointed messenger (T), which would trigger the opposite set of comments. Fraught.
And if Bloomberg were to actually say that...well, add his Jewishness to what I just mentioned, and everything would get exponentially worse--and possibly not just for Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is causing me to reconsider my "Anyone but Trump" approach. I like his campaign tactics though. Whoever wins the nomination should go to school on them.
Now that we are approaching Super Tuesday, people are taking a closer look at Bloomberg. It is common knowledge he was the mayor that was behind the stop and frisk tactic the NYPD. A quick Google Search will show new allegations of Bloomberg's misogyny.
While I know there is no love lost between Bloomberg and Trump, I just cannot vote for Bloomberg for a number of reasons. We simply do not need another senior citizen billionaire running the country four more years, IMHO.
I met Chasten Buttigieg earlier this evening.
I love him and Pete. Pete is hardly "another senior citizen billionaire"! I'm not only impressed with what I've seen and heard of Pete (and Chasten, who would make a wonderful "First Gentleman"), but I was impressed with the other people at the event. Meeting the supporters of a candidate says a lot about the candidate.
I am fervently imploring an assortment of deities from a variety of religions that The BloomBillionaireBerg either does not make the next debate on the theory that no public exposure to live opponents renders him unelectable, or that he gets thrust onto the debate stage and falls flat on his face. I used to think Tom Steyer lack personality. Next to Bloomberg, Steyer is a dynamo in the presence of nonconductors.
Bloomberg is NOT the anti-Trump. He's Trump in borrowed, badly fitting Democratic clothing. He's an oligarch and a racist.
Well, if "Democratic clothing" means he's likely to appoint someone like Ruth Ginsberg to the SCOTUS, rather than someone like Harriet Miers(remember her?), that's one ill-fitting suit I'd be happy to tolerate.
Bloomberg is NOT the anti-Trump. He's Trump in borrowed, badly fitting Democratic clothing. He's an oligarch and a racist.
Isn’t there also a history of women making allegations of harassment ?
Among other things, he allegedly told a pregnant employee that she should "kill the baby".
But we can balance that off against the current Republican party, which is run by people who would want to kill the woman.
(And yes yes, I know Bloomberg was a Republican at the city-level. But there is a whole world of difference between running as a Republican in NYC, and running as a Republican for the White House, where you need to get votes from the same people who think Trump and Franklin Graham have all the answers.)
Bloomberg is NOT the anti-Trump. He's Trump in borrowed, badly fitting Democratic clothing. He's an oligarch and a racist.
Well, if "Democratic clothing" means he's likely to appoint someone like Ruth Ginsberg to the SCOTUS, rather than someone like Harriet Miers(remember her?), that's one ill-fitting suit I'd be happy to tolerate.
Do you have reason to think he'd do so? Every new revelation about him makes me think he's not Donald Trump in Democratic clothing, he's Donald Trump with a hand-printed "D" pinned on his sweater.
Bloomberg is NOT the anti-Trump. He's Trump in borrowed, badly fitting Democratic clothing. He's an oligarch and a racist.
Well, if "Democratic clothing" means he's likely to appoint someone like Ruth Ginsberg to the SCOTUS, rather than someone like Harriet Miers(remember her?), that's one ill-fitting suit I'd be happy to tolerate.
Do you have reason to think he'd do so? Every new revelation about him makes me think he's not Donald Trump in Democratic clothing, he's Donald Trump with a hand-printed "D" pinned on his sweater.
Possibly on a personal level, but I don't really care about that. He's been pro-choice since at least his mayoralty years, and I'm pretty sure he's pro-marriage equality now. He also undertook gun-control measures while mayor, and is NOT a climate denier.
I think it might be more accurate to say that Bloomberg is what Trump would be if he had remained a Democrat, and ran for POTUS on that ticket. Which makea a pretty big difference to me, because I've always believed that about 80% of what's wrong with Trump is simply that he's implementing the Republican platform.
I am fervently imploring an assortment of deities from a variety of religions that The BloomBillionaireBerg either does not make the next debate on the theory that no public exposure to live opponents renders him unelectable, or that he gets thrust onto the debate stage and falls flat on his face.
If Bloomberg is going to be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination (and current polling indicates that he is) then Democratic primary voters/caucus goers should have a chance to see him in some other way than through his campaign ads. That means the debates.
Well, if "Democratic clothing" means he's likely to appoint someone like Ruth Ginsberg to the SCOTUS, rather than someone like Harriet Miers(remember her?), that's one ill-fitting suit I'd be happy to tolerate.
Bloomberg is unlikely to appoint someone like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. A President Bloomberg would most likely appoint someone more like Merrick Garland or some other pro-business moderate. Respect for something like the Fourth Amendment would be optional at best for a Bloomberg appointee. It would be an improvement over the various Federalist Society spawn that Trump seems to favor (big unanswered question: Who funds the Federalist Society?) but I can't see someone like Bloomberg appointing an ideological clone of RBG.
I was not overly familar with Garland's jurisprudence, but, as a general rule of thumb, I would prefer the kind of person who gets nominated by Barack Obama over the kind of person nominated by Donald Trump.
I do take the broad point that Bloomberg might be pretty skectchy on criminal justice issues, including 4th Amendment stuff. One of my worries is that, combining his law-and-order fervour with his nanny-statism, he'd go to war against states that have legalized weed, the current laissiez-faire regime on that issue being one of the few policies that Trump has actually managed to get right.
I am fervently imploring an assortment of deities from a variety of religions that The BloomBillionaireBerg either does not make the next debate on the theory that no public exposure to live opponents renders him unelectable, or that he gets thrust onto the debate stage and falls flat on his face. I used to think Tom Steyer lack personality. Next to Bloomberg, Steyer is a dynamo in the presence of nonconductors.
He has qualified for the next debate. No doubt he will have a large red target on his back for the other candidates/
I was not overly familar with Garland's jurisprudence, but, as a general rule of thumb, I would prefer the kind of person who gets nominated by Barack Obama over the kind of person nominated by Donald Trump.
As I said it would be an improvement, but not quite the same as being able to appoint RBG's forty-something ideological clone. Garland was picked by Obama because he was a moderate who had been praised by several sitting Republican Senators as a more reasonable alternative during the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations. Garland was also 63 years old at the time, meaning that even if his appointment was confirmed he wouldn't be on the bench for the next three decades. Despite these concessions Garland's nomination was still not acted on by the Senate.
That said, given that Mitch McConnell has established the rule that Democratic presidents don't get to appoint Supreme Court Justices it doesn't really matter what kind of Justices the next Democratic president would nominate unless Democrats also regain control of the Senate.
That said, given that Mitch McConnell has established the rule that Democratic presidents don't get to appoint Supreme Court Justices it doesn't really matter what kind of Justices the next Democratic president would nominate unless Democrats also regain control of the Senate.
All the more reason to either vote Mitch out or vote for a majority of Democratic senators or both.
This Democrat would be more happy with the latter option.
Now that we are approaching Super Tuesday, people are taking a closer look at Bloomberg. It is common knowledge he was the mayor that was behind the stop and frisk tactic the NYPD. A quick Google Search will show new allegations of Bloomberg's misogyny.
While I know there is no love lost between Bloomberg and Trump, I just cannot vote for Bloomberg for a number of reasons. We simply do not need another senior citizen billionaire running the country four more years, IMHO.
Refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee is effectively voting for Trump. If you are talking about the primaries, no worries. I wouldn't choose him in a pink fit either.
This is getting ridiculous. I know campaigns often complain* about how they should get more media coverage, but sometimes those complaints are justified. For example, there was a poll of likely voters done by NBC & the Wall Street Journal over the February 14-17 timeframe.
Here's the support of the various Democratic candidates among self-identified Democrats (p. 5):
Bernie Sanders 27%
Joe Biden 15%
Elizabeth Warren 14%
Michael Bloomberg 14%
Pete Buttigieg 13%
Amy Klobuchar 7%
Tom Steyer 2%
Tulsi Gabbard 1%
So far, so good. Pretty much as expected. Here's a list of the candidates with their first choice and second choice support numbers added together (p. 7):
Bernie Sanders 45
Pete Buttigieg 29
Elizabeth Warren 29
Joe Biden 25
Michael Bloomberg 23
Amy Klobuchar 21
Tom Steyer 4
Tulsi Gabbard 3
Much the same list as before. Buttigieg is more popular as a second choice while Biden is less so, but otherwise everyone's in the same order.
So then they do a bunch of head to head comparisons of individual candidates vs. the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump (p. 11). They did Trump v. Biden, Trump v. Sanders, Trump v. Bloomberg, Trump v. Buttigieg, and Trump v. Klobuchar. Notice who's missing from that list? Yeah, Elizabeth Warren. She's in third place according to this polling (or possibly second if you count second-choice support), also in third place by current delegate count, and yet gets blacklisted from this poll along with Steyer and Gabbard (who are polling in the low single digits).
My working hypothesis is that the Wall Street Journal is under orders to not mention Elizabeth Warren unless strictly necessary.
*To the best of my knowledge the Warren campaign has not publicly complained about this so far.
Now that we are approaching Super Tuesday, people are taking a closer look at Bloomberg. It is common knowledge he was the mayor that was behind the stop and frisk tactic the NYPD. A quick Google Search will show new allegations of Bloomberg's misogyny.
While I know there is no love lost between Bloomberg and Trump, I just cannot vote for Bloomberg for a number of reasons. We simply do not need another senior citizen billionaire running the country four more years, IMHO.
Refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee is effectively voting for Trump. If you are talking about the primaries, no worries. I wouldn't choose him in a pink fit either.
I am refusing to vote to nominate Bloomberg in the primary. I am not talking about the general election.
Fact is, I am seriously thinking of voting in the Republican primary (this is allowed in Washington State) for someone other than Trump. Trump just hates it when someone votes against him.
Forgivable, given that the primaries are often talked about as if they were an official part of the electoral process, so it's easy to imagine that your registration as a Democrat for a primary would be recorded by election officials.
Forgivable, given that the primaries are often talked about as if they were an official part of the electoral process, so it's easy to imagine that your registration as a Democrat for a primary would be recorded by election officials.
Well, it is, more or less, at least here.* Here, when you register to vote, you register either as a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian or as unaffiliated (independent). My voter registration information shows that I’m registered as a Democrat. That appears, along with things like my address, in the poll book anytime I go to vote, though it only matters in primaries. It also appears on the publicly available voter information maintained by the state, so anybody can look me up and see that I’m registered as a Democrat.
*Always remembering that there are 50+ election systems in the US, and party registration is one of the things that may be treated differently in different states.
Always remembering that there are 50+ election systems in the US, and party registration is one of the things that may be treated differently in different states.
The big difference is whether a given state has an "open" or "closed" primary election system. In an open primary any registered voter can vote in either party's primary (but not both). In closed primaries only registered members of the party can vote in that party's primary. Naturally this means that party registration is more likely to be recorded officially by the election system in states with closed primaries.
Or you have the in-between like we do here—if you’re registered as affiliated with a party, you can only vote in that party’s primary. But if you’re registered as unaffiliated (which here is the second largest group of voters), you can vote in the primary of any party.
Forgivable, given that the primaries are often talked about as if they were an official part of the electoral process, so it's easy to imagine that your registration as a Democrat for a primary would be recorded by election officials.
Well, it is, more or less, at least here.* Here, when you register to vote, you register either as a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian or as unaffiliated (independent). My voter registration information shows that I’m registered as a Democrat. That appears, along with things like my address, in the poll book anytime I go to vote, though it only matters in primaries. It also appears on the publicly available voter information maintained by the state, so anybody can look me up and see that I’m registered as a Democrat.
*Always remembering that there are 50+ election systems in the US, and party registration is one of the things that may be treated differently in different states.
Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was an official, state-mandated thing. I thought you only registered with the parties, in order to vote in the primaries.
What is the rationale for the government wanting to know how you identify party-wise? Seems a little authoritarian to me, though I recognize they allow for Independent.
Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was an official, state-mandated thing. I thought you only registered with the parties, in order to vote in the primaries.
What is the rationale for the government wanting to know how you identify party-wise? Seems a little authoritarian to me, though I recognize they allow for Independent.
See my earlier post about open vs. closed primaries. Note that even though they're conducted under party rules, most American primary elections (for the two major parties, at least) are administered by the same government election officials who administer the general election.
Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was an official, state-mandated thing. I thought you only registered with the parties, in order to vote in the primaries.
What is the rationale for the government wanting to know how you identify party-wise? Seems a little authoritarian to me, though I recognize they allow for Independent.
See my earlier post about open vs. closed primaries. Note that even though they're conducted under party rules, most American primary elections (for the two major parties, at least) are administered by the same government election officials who administer the general election.
So, basically, the government administers the open-primaries in order to ensure that they stay uncorrupted, ie. only people who registered with the party in question can vote in its primaries?
I guess that makes sense, but it seems to me that it might have the effect of conditioning the public to believe that those two parties(or maybe the Libertarians) enjoy official state approval.
So, basically, the government administers the open-primaries in order to ensure that they stay uncorrupted, ie. only people who registered with the party in question can vote in its primaries?
They administer both open (any registered voter can vote) and closed (only party members can vote) primaries for both logistical reasons (only one set of voting equipment is needed, the government has access to enough locations capable of serving as polling places, etc.) and because the government has an interest in primary elections being free and fair to the same extent that general elections are.
Smaller parties could, theoretically, have primaries but they mostly seem content deciding their candidates at conventions, something that would be impractical for larger political parties.
I guess that makes sense, but it seems to me that it might have the effect of conditioning the public to believe that those two parties (or maybe the Libertarians) enjoy official state approval.
Well, except for the part about only two parties, that’s more or less the case here, in that a party is only recognized by the state—and is therefore able to participate in primaries and field candidates in the general election—if its most recent gubernatorial candidate received at least 2% of the total vote, its presidential candidate has been accepted in at least 70% of the states, or its members present a petition with signatures equal to 0.25% of the number of voters who voted in the most recent presidential election.
We have 5 recognized parties here—Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green and Constitution. (I forgot about the last two when I posted above.)
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I was impressed with Pete Buttigieg at the latest CNN Town Hall. Quieter, less polemical than Bernie Sanders. He gave a lot of very straight, unqualified, answers to some tough questions.
It looks at present as though Bernie will win the nomination. If so, he'll be labelled a socialist as a spurt to conservatives to vote Trump. Normally I think this would hurt, but not so sure this year. Trump's latest stunt (re pardoning rich crooks) may have an impact on those in the middle,
I really like Bernie and voted for him in the primary four years ago. But... for one thing, he's now four years older and has had a heart attack, For another, after the mess Trump has made of our relationships with other countries, I think we need someone who can be calm and diplomatic in our international dealings. I think Pete can do that (very likely in their own languages!).
DMV--Voter Registration in California
That's the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, one place where you can register. They also keep public records of what party (if any) you're registered with. Not sure *why* they keep them. It's not like someone in a car accident is going to urgently ask for party members to minster to them!
California's Official Election Site
Many parts to that, but it should cover most questions about how voting is handled in this one state. There are buttons for the 2020 election info and for the voter information guide for the primary.
--Current list of California's qualified political parties.
There are other parties, but maybe they haven't yet gotten all their ducks in a row this time for getting qualified. There's a Natural Law party--AIUI, kinda sorta Libertarian. Reading NL's statements over the years, there always seemed to me to be some kind of subtext that was...objectionable. But haven't been able to identify it.
--I used to be registered Green. Voted mostly Democratic, because a) there just weren't many Green candidates; b) voting for Green candidates might have let Republicans win over Democrats; and c) one Green who I helped vote into the state legislature then became a Democrat.
The first time Hillary ran, I was still Green, and we had a closed primary, so I couldn't vote for her. But I *did* write her in. Very important to me to finally have a woman president. She lost the primary, and I voted for Obama.
The second time H ran, I didn't want to take any chances. Write-in votes aren't always counted. (Heck, sometimes boxes of ballots don't make it to the SF Dept. of Elections.) So I switched to Dem, and I've stayed.
Sometime very soon there will be a woman President. I hope its a Democrat, but I have grudgingly accepted that conservative women in public life contribute to equality just by being women in prominent, powerful positions. Thatcher set me back decades on that one.
I love the idea of a car accident victim refusing to be treated by a Republican ambo!
Here is a Twitter review of last night's Democratic Presidential debate:
Listen, some pundits may say that it was unsporting for Elizabeth Warren to kick off this debate by ripping Mike Bloomberg’s arms off and using them to punch him in the dick, but i respectfully disagree
Las Vegas debate was a debacle for Bloomberg. I think Warren came out better than the rest. Bernie also did well. Biden was befuddled. Pete and Amy went at each other like a brother and sister spat.
Las Vegas debate was a debacle for Bloomberg. I think Warren came out better than the rest.
There were some people (obviously ones who'd never seen her in action) who claimed to be worried that Elizabeth Warren wasn't up to the task of debating Donald Trump. Last night showed she can demolish an arrogant, sexist, racist rich guy pretty efficiently.
Michael Bloomberg is what you would design if you wanted to embody the issues Warren has been campaigning on.
Sometime very soon there will be a woman President. I hope its a Democrat, but I have grudgingly accepted that conservative women in public life contribute to equality just by being women in prominent, powerful positions. Thatcher set me back decades on that one.
I love the idea of a car accident victim refusing to be treated by a Republican ambo!
There is a segment in the sketch show Key & Peele in which a man tears out his newly implanted heart when he finds out Obama Care paid for it.
I only watched roughly the last half of the debate. Warren mopped the stage with her competition. I think Elizabeth has a problem (though it's not within her, but with the media coverage), to wit:
The WaPo sported headlines on this debate this morning. In a little cluster of stories above the fold were 10 headlines. Bloomberg (acknowledged loser) got mentions in 6 spots; Bernie's in 4; Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren got 1 mention each.
IOW, an honest summation of this coverage would be "Bloomberg Bombs Bigly; Oh, And Warren Was There, too."
Didn't see the debate. But the core issue that divisiveness amongst the Democrats served Trump is something that I think is accurate. Trump's base will vote. Too many Democrats do not and, IMO, too many are fixated on "their" candidate.
Too many Democrats do not and, IMO, too many are fixated on "their" candidate.
What do you base your opinion on? Every single Democrat I know would vote for a grilled cheese sandwich for president this year if it were the Democratic nominee. As I pointed out last week, there is polling data on this:
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democratic primary voters plan to vote for the Democratic nominee even if their candidate does not receive the nomination. Thirteen-percent (13%) say they will not vote for the Democratic nominee if their chosen candidate does not win, while 15% say it will depend on who the nominee is.
Punch the words "Republican infighting 2016" into the search engine of your choice and you will find loads of people opining that all the sniping among Republican candidates that year was hurting the party's chances.
It's only February, for crying out loud. Obama didn't clinch the nomination till June in 2008.
Ain't no Obama in this crowd. My thoughts are based on Republicans skewing old and old people voting in higher percentages. It is pretty much established that young people, who are more liberal, don't vote in high numbers. And that Republicans seem to be more united.
Interestingly, this New York Times article makes the case that high turnout is not necessarily a boost for the democrats. It depends on who turns out.
No no no. You are reading media that WANTS the race to be full of tension and worry so that people stay interested. That's what they do. As Saint Billy says re Page 3 girls in the '80's, 'In the war of circulation it sells newspapers. Could it be an infringement of the freedom of the press to print pictures of women in states of undress?' (I love that line. I can never leave it out.)
What we have here is past experience telling us that in contested nomination battles, candidates always attack each other, Republican and Democrat. It is par for the course. It doesn't help the other side, because by the time election day comes around its all forgotten. Its all forgotten, because by then, the media will be beefing up how close the head to head race is and making all sorts of prognostications about it.
By then, I will have lost my head completely too and be reading everything and tearing my hair out, a weeping mess of hope, dreams, anxiety and frustration.
I fully expect Trump to win and American fascism to crash down upon us like a black wave. See you all in prison, if we are lucky.
Comments
Calling yourself "the anti-Trump" would sound/be arrogant; gather very nasty attention (and worse) from rabid Trumpers; set yourself up for serious comments about being the actual anti-Christ to God's appointed messenger (T), which would trigger the opposite set of comments. Fraught.
And if Bloomberg were to actually say that...well, add his Jewishness to what I just mentioned, and everything would get exponentially worse--and possibly not just for Bloomberg.
While I know there is no love lost between Bloomberg and Trump, I just cannot vote for Bloomberg for a number of reasons. We simply do not need another senior citizen billionaire running the country four more years, IMHO.
I love him and Pete. Pete is hardly "another senior citizen billionaire"! I'm not only impressed with what I've seen and heard of Pete (and Chasten, who would make a wonderful "First Gentleman"), but I was impressed with the other people at the event. Meeting the supporters of a candidate says a lot about the candidate.
Well, if "Democratic clothing" means he's likely to appoint someone like Ruth Ginsberg to the SCOTUS, rather than someone like Harriet Miers(remember her?), that's one ill-fitting suit I'd be happy to tolerate.
Among other things, he allegedly told a pregnant employee that she should "kill the baby".
But we can balance that off against the current Republican party, which is run by people who would want to kill the woman.
(And yes yes, I know Bloomberg was a Republican at the city-level. But there is a whole world of difference between running as a Republican in NYC, and running as a Republican for the White House, where you need to get votes from the same people who think Trump and Franklin Graham have all the answers.)
Do you have reason to think he'd do so? Every new revelation about him makes me think he's not Donald Trump in Democratic clothing, he's Donald Trump with a hand-printed "D" pinned on his sweater.
Possibly on a personal level, but I don't really care about that. He's been pro-choice since at least his mayoralty years, and I'm pretty sure he's pro-marriage equality now. He also undertook gun-control measures while mayor, and is NOT a climate denier.
I think it might be more accurate to say that Bloomberg is what Trump would be if he had remained a Democrat, and ran for POTUS on that ticket. Which makea a pretty big difference to me, because I've always believed that about 80% of what's wrong with Trump is simply that he's implementing the Republican platform.
If Bloomberg is going to be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination (and current polling indicates that he is) then Democratic primary voters/caucus goers should have a chance to see him in some other way than through his campaign ads. That means the debates.
Bloomberg is unlikely to appoint someone like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. A President Bloomberg would most likely appoint someone more like Merrick Garland or some other pro-business moderate. Respect for something like the Fourth Amendment would be optional at best for a Bloomberg appointee. It would be an improvement over the various Federalist Society spawn that Trump seems to favor (big unanswered question: Who funds the Federalist Society?) but I can't see someone like Bloomberg appointing an ideological clone of RBG.
I was not overly familar with Garland's jurisprudence, but, as a general rule of thumb, I would prefer the kind of person who gets nominated by Barack Obama over the kind of person nominated by Donald Trump.
I do take the broad point that Bloomberg might be pretty skectchy on criminal justice issues, including 4th Amendment stuff. One of my worries is that, combining his law-and-order fervour with his nanny-statism, he'd go to war against states that have legalized weed, the current laissiez-faire regime on that issue being one of the few policies that Trump has actually managed to get right.
He has qualified for the next debate. No doubt he will have a large red target on his back for the other candidates/
As I said it would be an improvement, but not quite the same as being able to appoint RBG's forty-something ideological clone. Garland was picked by Obama because he was a moderate who had been praised by several sitting Republican Senators as a more reasonable alternative during the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations. Garland was also 63 years old at the time, meaning that even if his appointment was confirmed he wouldn't be on the bench for the next three decades. Despite these concessions Garland's nomination was still not acted on by the Senate.
That said, given that Mitch McConnell has established the rule that Democratic presidents don't get to appoint Supreme Court Justices it doesn't really matter what kind of Justices the next Democratic president would nominate unless Democrats also regain control of the Senate.
All the more reason to either vote Mitch out or vote for a majority of Democratic senators or both.
This Democrat would be more happy with the latter option.
Refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee is effectively voting for Trump. If you are talking about the primaries, no worries. I wouldn't choose him in a pink fit either.
Here's the support of the various Democratic candidates among self-identified Democrats (p. 5):
So far, so good. Pretty much as expected. Here's a list of the candidates with their first choice and second choice support numbers added together (p. 7):
Much the same list as before. Buttigieg is more popular as a second choice while Biden is less so, but otherwise everyone's in the same order.
So then they do a bunch of head to head comparisons of individual candidates vs. the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump (p. 11). They did Trump v. Biden, Trump v. Sanders, Trump v. Bloomberg, Trump v. Buttigieg, and Trump v. Klobuchar. Notice who's missing from that list? Yeah, Elizabeth Warren. She's in third place according to this polling (or possibly second if you count second-choice support), also in third place by current delegate count, and yet gets blacklisted from this poll along with Steyer and Gabbard (who are polling in the low single digits).
My working hypothesis is that the Wall Street Journal is under orders to not mention Elizabeth Warren unless strictly necessary.
*To the best of my knowledge the Warren campaign has not publicly complained about this so far.
I am refusing to vote to nominate Bloomberg in the primary. I am not talking about the general election.
Fact is, I am seriously thinking of voting in the Republican primary (this is allowed in Washington State) for someone other than Trump. Trump just hates it when someone votes against him.
Would you still be able to vote Democratic in the general election?
How would anyone know how he votes in the general?
Forgivable, given that the primaries are often talked about as if they were an official part of the electoral process, so it's easy to imagine that your registration as a Democrat for a primary would be recorded by election officials.
*Always remembering that there are 50+ election systems in the US, and party registration is one of the things that may be treated differently in different states.
The big difference is whether a given state has an "open" or "closed" primary election system. In an open primary any registered voter can vote in either party's primary (but not both). In closed primaries only registered members of the party can vote in that party's primary. Naturally this means that party registration is more likely to be recorded officially by the election system in states with closed primaries.
Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was an official, state-mandated thing. I thought you only registered with the parties, in order to vote in the primaries.
What is the rationale for the government wanting to know how you identify party-wise? Seems a little authoritarian to me, though I recognize they allow for Independent.
See my earlier post about open vs. closed primaries. Note that even though they're conducted under party rules, most American primary elections (for the two major parties, at least) are administered by the same government election officials who administer the general election.
So, basically, the government administers the open-primaries in order to ensure that they stay uncorrupted, ie. only people who registered with the party in question can vote in its primaries?
I guess that makes sense, but it seems to me that it might have the effect of conditioning the public to believe that those two parties(or maybe the Libertarians) enjoy official state approval.
They administer both open (any registered voter can vote) and closed (only party members can vote) primaries for both logistical reasons (only one set of voting equipment is needed, the government has access to enough locations capable of serving as polling places, etc.) and because the government has an interest in primary elections being free and fair to the same extent that general elections are.
Smaller parties could, theoretically, have primaries but they mostly seem content deciding their candidates at conventions, something that would be impractical for larger political parties.
We have 5 recognized parties here—Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green and Constitution. (I forgot about the last two when I posted above.)
It looks at present as though Bernie will win the nomination. If so, he'll be labelled a socialist as a spurt to conservatives to vote Trump. Normally I think this would hurt, but not so sure this year. Trump's latest stunt (re pardoning rich crooks) may have an impact on those in the middle,
--Some practical examples:
DMV--Voter Registration in California
That's the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, one place where you can register. They also keep public records of what party (if any) you're registered with. Not sure *why* they keep them. It's not like someone in a car accident is going to urgently ask for party members to minster to them!
California's Official Election Site
Many parts to that, but it should cover most questions about how voting is handled in this one state. There are buttons for the 2020 election info and for the voter information guide for the primary.
--Current list of California's qualified political parties.
There are other parties, but maybe they haven't yet gotten all their ducks in a row this time for getting qualified. There's a Natural Law party--AIUI, kinda sorta Libertarian. Reading NL's statements over the years, there always seemed to me to be some kind of subtext that was...objectionable. But haven't been able to identify it.
--I used to be registered Green. Voted mostly Democratic, because a) there just weren't many Green candidates; b) voting for Green candidates might have let Republicans win over Democrats; and c) one Green who I helped vote into the state legislature then became a Democrat.
The first time Hillary ran, I was still Green, and we had a closed primary, so I couldn't vote for her. But I *did* write her in. Very important to me to finally have a woman president. She lost the primary, and I voted for Obama.
The second time H ran, I didn't want to take any chances. Write-in votes aren't always counted. (Heck, sometimes boxes of ballots don't make it to the SF Dept. of Elections.) So I switched to Dem, and I've stayed.
I love the idea of a car accident victim refusing to be treated by a Republican ambo!
Now I regret my decision not to watch.
There were some people (obviously ones who'd never seen her in action) who claimed to be worried that Elizabeth Warren wasn't up to the task of debating Donald Trump. Last night showed she can demolish an arrogant, sexist, racist rich guy pretty efficiently.
Michael Bloomberg is what you would design if you wanted to embody the issues Warren has been campaigning on.
The WaPo sported headlines on this debate this morning. In a little cluster of stories above the fold were 10 headlines. Bloomberg (acknowledged loser) got mentions in 6 spots; Bernie's in 4; Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren got 1 mention each.
IOW, an honest summation of this coverage would be "Bloomberg Bombs Bigly; Oh, And Warren Was There, too."
What do you base your opinion on? Every single Democrat I know would vote for a grilled cheese sandwich for president this year if it were the Democratic nominee. As I pointed out last week, there is polling data on this:
Punch the words "Republican infighting 2016" into the search engine of your choice and you will find loads of people opining that all the sniping among Republican candidates that year was hurting the party's chances.
It's only February, for crying out loud. Obama didn't clinch the nomination till June in 2008.
Interestingly, this New York Times article makes the case that high turnout is not necessarily a boost for the democrats. It depends on who turns out.
What we have here is past experience telling us that in contested nomination battles, candidates always attack each other, Republican and Democrat. It is par for the course. It doesn't help the other side, because by the time election day comes around its all forgotten. Its all forgotten, because by then, the media will be beefing up how close the head to head race is and making all sorts of prognostications about it.
By then, I will have lost my head completely too and be reading everything and tearing my hair out, a weeping mess of hope, dreams, anxiety and frustration.
I fully expect Trump to win and American fascism to crash down upon us like a black wave. See you all in prison, if we are lucky.