Democratic Party Nominating Process

[TheDrake]

The draft proposal would end the Democratic Party's current nominating process structure -- where the Iowa caucuses go first, followed by primaries in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- and instead implement a process that would prioritize more diverse battleground states that choose to hold primaries, not caucuses. The new structure would require states to apply to hold early nominating contests and the rules committee would select "no more than five states to be allowed to hold the first determining stage in their presidential nominating process."

Wow, this is big news. And the timing is very interesting, considering they have an incumbent President. By focusing on "battleground" states, it feels like they are trying to further stack the deck against the progressive wing formerly standing behind Sanders. Moderate Democrats get a boost from this move, big time. It would also move the party away from the personal, small group orientation of Iowa and New Hampshire, and more to the big event type of state. Those states would require much more of an initial war chest. So they're trying to manufacture more Bidens, and ward off Elizabeth Warren.

[Grant]

Wow, this is big news. And the timing is very interesting, considering they have an incumbent President. By focusing on "battleground" states, it feels like they are trying to further stack the deck against the progressive wing formerly standing behind Sanders. Moderate Democrats get a boost from this move, big time. It would also move the party away from the personal, small group orientation of Iowa and New Hampshire, and more to the big event type of state. Those states would require much more of an initial war chest. So they're trying to manufacture more Bidens, and ward off Elizabeth Warren.

This is good news and I wish the GOP would do something similar, along with ranked voting for primaries.  I don't see much hope for that, though, since the GOP (the party aparatus) is 90% in the pocket of The Mighty Savior Chattegrabber and wouldn't dare do something that might jeopardize the support of his Great 5th Grade Communication Skillz.

[yossarian22c]

Wow, this is big news. And the timing is very interesting, considering they have an incumbent President. By focusing on "battleground" states, it feels like they are trying to further stack the deck against the progressive wing formerly standing behind Sanders. Moderate Democrats get a boost from this move, big time. It would also move the party away from the personal, small group orientation of Iowa and New Hampshire, and more to the big event type of state. Those states would require much more of an initial war chest. So they're trying to manufacture more Bidens, and ward off Elizabeth Warren.

This is good news and I wish the GOP would do something similar, along with ranked voting for primaries.  I don't see much hope for that, though, since the GOP (the party aparatus) is 90% in the pocket of The Mighty Savior Chattegrabber and wouldn't dare do something that might jeopardize the support of his Great 5th Grade Communication Skillz.

It is good news. We still need to find a better solution than primaries that draw the hardcore activist at a higher proportion than the general election. Combined with gerrymandering it leads to a very polarized house. We don't need MTG, probably could do without AOC. At least the democrats are trying to be strategic and let the battleground states that actually decide the election pick the candidate in the primaries. And making the change with an incumbent makes sense. If candidates were lining up already then the different factions would argue because it would already be benefitting one candidate or another. Good timing, good long term strategy.

[TheDrake]

Sure, by all means move the party to the center. I can't wait to see Manchin or Sinema get nominated.

[yossarian22c]

Sure, by all means move the party to the center. I can't wait to see Manchin or Sinema get nominated.

Other than climate stuff with manchin I like centrist, pragmatic presidents that will get some good stuff done instead of being a fire brand who gets nothing through congress in 4 years.

[TheDrake]

Sure, by all means move the party to the center. I can't wait to see Manchin or Sinema get nominated.

Other than climate stuff with manchin I like centrist, pragmatic presidents that will get some good stuff done instead of being a fire brand who gets nothing through congress in 4 years.

,

Great. They'll get nominated and lose. The motivated base that drives the campaigns will throw up their hands and start plotting a revolution, and meanwhile almost no Republican is ever going to vote for someone with a (D) next to their name. Screw everyone, no handouts, don't tax the rich, voter suppression is fine by me, healthcare is fine as-is. I'm not really sure if he's any better than Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bush2. He might be better than DeSantis or Ted Cruz.

[yossarian22c]

Sure, by all means move the party to the center. I can't wait to see Manchin or Sinema get nominated.

Other than climate stuff with manchin I like centrist, pragmatic presidents that will get some good stuff done instead of being a fire brand who gets nothing through congress in 4 years.

,

Great. They'll get nominated and lose. The motivated base that drives the campaigns will throw up their hands and start plotting a revolution, and meanwhile almost no Republican is ever going to vote for someone with a (D) next to their name. Screw everyone, no handouts, don't tax the rich, voter suppression is fine by me, healthcare is fine as-is. I'm not really sure if he's any better than Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bush2. He might be better than DeSantis or Ted Cruz.

Biden won. Because he could do better in Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest. Who cares if Democrats get 2,000,000 fewer votes in NYC or California as long as they carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The electoral college is a weird beast. And in those super processive districts maybe they still be persuaded to come out to vote for their version of AOC or Bernie in the house or Senate.

[TheDrake]

Hillary lost at least in part because of disaffected Bernie supporters. In swing states. Democrats will get more of that. Biden was a fluke because Trump was loathed enough to motivate the progressives that can't stand Biden but to a lesser degree.

[yossarian22c]

Hillary lost at least in part because of disaffected Bernie supporters. In swing states. Democrats will get more of that. Biden was a fluke because Trump was loathed enough to motivate the progressives that can't stand Biden but to a lesser degree.

Hillary lost because she had 30 years of Clinton baggage and following up a two term president with another president of the same party is really hard. She underperformed in a few key states that Trump overperformed in, largely because of his populist rhetoric that appealed to some traditional democratic voters.

[LetterRip]

She lost due to underestimating her unpopularity driving voter opposition turnout, and overestimating her popularity in swing states and not spending enough get out the vote effort.

[TheDrake]

Hillary lost at least in part because of disaffected Bernie supporters. In swing states. Democrats will get more of that. Biden was a fluke because Trump was loathed enough to motivate the progressives that can't stand Biden but to a lesser degree.

Hillary lost because she had 30 years of Clinton baggage and following up a two term president with another president of the same party is really hard. She underperformed in a few key states that Trump overperformed in, largely because of his populist rhetoric that appealed to some traditional democratic voters.

I don't know why it is hard for you to admit that lack of support from the Progressives was a factor.

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election.

Mark my words, you'd see the same thing with a Manchin-like candidate. Especially if it was a less buffoonish Republican. You think the progressive voters are going to forget that he destroyed voting rights protections, social safety nets, and other issues dear to their hearts?

I donated to Sanders, not to Hillary and not to Biden. I donated to Gary Johnson. Fundraising takes a toll that you're not going to make up with centrists in my opinion. Possibly you might get a mass influx from corporate donors who want no part of progressive candidates.

[LetterRip]

I don't know why it is hard for you to admit that lack of support from the Progressives was a factor.

It wasn't a significant factor.  Progressive turnout for Clinton was in line with past turnout.

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election.

And they mostly weren't progressives, Sanders was attracting significant support from Republican populist voters - that there was zero chance they'd ever vote for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters

[msquared]

Just an FYI  as a Republican (at least at that time) I would have voted for Bernie over Hillary every day of the week.

[TheDrake]

I don't know why it is hard for you to admit that lack of support from the Progressives was a factor.

It wasn't a significant factor.  Progressive turnout for Clinton was in line with past turnout.

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election.

And they mostly weren't progressives, Sanders was attracting significant support from Republican populist voters - that there was zero chance they'd ever vote for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters

Again you miss part of the point. whether they voted for her didn't mean they were donating to her, advocating for her, going door to door for her. But fine, I guess we'll have another datapoint soon. Like next year when Trump gets his second term because the Democrats are relying on the "safe" choices.

[yossarian22c]

...

Again you miss part of the point. whether they voted for her didn't mean they were donating to her, advocating for her, going door to door for her. But fine, I guess we'll have another datapoint soon. Like next year when Trump gets his second term because the Democrats are relying on the "safe" choices.

Clinton wasn't the "safe" choice other than she wasn't Bernie. No candidate (other than Trump) has had higher negative ratings entering a campaign. Biden was the safe choice, would have been in 2016 too. Bernie was exciting in 2016, and I think he beats Trump. I think Bernie loses to McCain or Romney though.

[TheDrake]

I'd rather have the loser who might conceivably try to do so something. Even Biden at least attempted to get some real reform measures passed. Mostly because of pressures from the left wing house. I think he would have been happy to let Manchin dictate precisely how little he wanted to do so he could put his signature on something. The progressive caucus sent out warnings that if he got some watery do-nothing bill into the house, they'd shoot it down.

[yossarian22c]

I'd rather have the loser who might conceivably try to do so something. Even Biden at least attempted to get some real reform measures passed. Mostly because of pressures from the left wing house. I think he would have been happy to let Manchin dictate precisely how little he wanted to do so he could put his signature on something. The progressive caucus sent out warnings that if he got some watery do-nothing bill into the house, they'd shoot it down.

I'd rather have a functioning Democracy and keep Trump out of the white house again. Doesn't matter how progressive the President is if the Senate keeps the filibuster and is split 50/50 with some very moderate Democrats holding all the power.

[TheDrake]

I'd rather have the loser who might conceivably try to do so something. Even Biden at least attempted to get some real reform measures passed. Mostly because of pressures from the left wing house. I think he would have been happy to let Manchin dictate precisely how little he wanted to do so he could put his signature on something. The progressive caucus sent out warnings that if he got some watery do-nothing bill into the house, they'd shoot it down.

I'd rather have a functioning Democracy and keep Trump out of the white house again. Doesn't matter how progressive the President is if the Senate keeps the filibuster and is split 50/50 with some very moderate Democrats holding all the power.

It does if he starts spraying out executive orders like a pinata exploded. It does if it becomes a 52/48 spread because an inspiring leader pulls a couple of Dem candidates on their coattails. It does if they spark and support primary challengers to Manchin and Sinema. There's no use in being a majority in name only.