2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Shrillland]

Well, I do have a senate race next year, but Durbin's almost pre-determined to win it.

[Shrillland]

Well, I do have a senate race next year, but Durbin's almost pre-determined to win it.

Ah, the dick is gonna win, eh?

Aye, his 5th term, he's getting up to the traditional age of senators as he's 75 now.

[Valrifell]

I feel that every State should hold their Primary/Caucus on the same day and then used a runoff or rank voting system. It's kind of dumb that a few States in the beginning can decide whether one succeeds or not, especially among States that have few electoral votes. My brief rant of the day /r

You're not wrong, and the structure of the Electoral College should encourage doing it that way (since you'd essentially just be doing a mock election before the actual election) but the DNC or the RNC isn't likely to change the rules for primary because their state-level equivalents would have a cow.

[Talvezout]

Sen Tom Udall of New Mexico is retiring before the 2020 election, apparently US Reps Ben Ray Lujan and Deb Haaland are possibly running for the Dems and Steve Pearce, former Lt. Gov. John Sanchez, Mick Rich, and Gavin Clarkson could all run for the Reps.

What does NSG think?

[Hakons]

Californians complaining about representation comes off as a bit funny, but a primary day for all states would be a lot better and more fair. Maybe put it in June, so we can save ourselves from a few months of campaigning season.

Indiana is a smallish state electorally, and we go later in the primary season (May), so it would make us more relevant too. 2016 was a bit of an anomaly in that we actually mattered.

[United Dependencies]

Californians complaining about representation comes off as a bit funny, but a primary day for all states would be a lot better and more fair. Maybe put it in June, so we can save ourselves from a few months of campaigning season.

Indiana is a smallish state electorally, and we go later in the primary season (May), so it would make us more relevant too. 2016 was a bit of an anomaly in that we actually mattered.

The problem with having all the primaries on the same day is that it prevents lesser known candidates from building momentum. It is easier for a candidate to campaign in small and medium sized states even if they don't have a whole lot of cash. By holding primaries from smaller states first, a candidate can get recognition by winning which will then help with the fundraising needed for larger states.

If we hold all the primaries on the same day, then the candidate who has enough money to pay for TV ads everywhere is going to benefit.

the converse of this is that states like California only vote after most of the delegates have been awarded. Case in point: by the time the 2016 Democratic primary got to CA, the only way for Bernie to win the overall nomination is to win every single delegate in CA. Since this is basically impossible, there was little effect that a CA's vote is going to have on deciding who the nominee is going to be for the Democratic Party. Combine with this with the fact that CA is pretty reliably blue, and you've got a state where the voters don't really get to pick who they're voting for.

[Myrensis]

Sen Tom Udall of New Mexico is retiring before the 2020 election, apparently US Reps Ben Ray Lujan and Deb Haaland are possibly running for the Dems and Steve Pearce, former Lt. Gov. John Sanchez, Mick Rich, and Gavin Clarkson could all run for the Reps.

What does NSG think?

Lujan will take it easily.

[Valrifell]

Californians complaining about representation comes off as a bit funny, but a primary day for all states would be a lot better and more fair. Maybe put it in June, so we can save ourselves from a few months of campaigning season.

Indiana is a smallish state electorally, and we go later in the primary season (May), so it would make us more relevant too. 2016 was a bit of an anomaly in that we actually mattered.

Nah, Indiana wasn't among the deciding states that carried Trump to the White House. You voted in line as expected, which is why you get ignored under the current system.

[Farnhamia]

Californians complaining about representation comes off as a bit funny, but a primary day for all states would be a lot better and more fair. Maybe put it in June, so we can save ourselves from a few months of campaigning season.

Indiana is a smallish state electorally, and we go later in the primary season (May), so it would make us more relevant too. 2016 was a bit of an anomaly in that we actually mattered.

The problem with having all the primaries on the same day is that it prevents lesser known candidates from building momentum. It is easier for a candidate to campaign in small and medium sized states even if they don't have a whole lot of cash. By holding primaries from smaller states first, a candidate can get recognition by winning which will then help with the fundraising needed for larger states.

If we hold all the primaries on the same day, then the candidate who has enough money to pay for TV ads everywhere is going to benefit.

the converse of this is that states like California only vote after most of the delegates have been awarded. Case in point: by the time the 2016 Democratic primary got to CA, the only way for Bernie to win the overall nomination is to win every single delegate in CA. Since this is basically impossible, there was little effect that a CA's vote is going to have on deciding who the nominee is going to be for the Democratic Party. Combine with this with the fact that CA is pretty reliably blue, and you've got a state where the voters don't really get to pick who they're voting for.

It occurred to me yesterday while reading the beginning of this line of discussion that, since the primaries are internal matters for the parties, they could split the large states like California, New York, Texas, etc, into pieces. They'd need to be reasonably equal pieces, I suppose. Then you could spread them out in the primary schedule. I also thought that maybe the big states could go in the middle of the schedule, allowing momentum building early, have the big hit in the middle but leave enough for the end to let people catch up.

[United Dependencies]

That's a good model.

Farn for DNC Chair 2021!

Sadly, it's not up to the DNC. It's up to the individual state parties and state legislatures.

[Ngelmish]

Californians complaining about representation comes off as a bit funny, but a primary day for all states would be a lot better and more fair. Maybe put it in June, so we can save ourselves from a few months of campaigning season.

Indiana is a smallish state electorally, and we go later in the primary season (May), so it would make us more relevant too. 2016 was a bit of an anomaly in that we actually mattered.

Nah, Indiana wasn't among the deciding states that carried Trump to the White House. You voted in line as expected, which is why you get ignored under the current system.

I think Hakons was referring more to the fact that Indiana was Ted Cruz's last stand as a primary candidate. It's one of the few things I'll give the state political credit for.

[Valrifell]

That's a good model.

Farn for DNC Chair 2021!

Sadly, it's not up to the DNC. It's up to the individual state parties and state legislatures.

Well, if the DNC wanted to, they could pressure and campaign for the state committees to change their rules. Iirc McGovern went hard for the system we have now.

[Farnhamia]

That's a good model.

Farn for DNC Chair 2021!

Sadly, it's not up to the DNC. It's up to the individual state parties and state legislatures.

I suppose. The national leadership could push it and I imagine some states would go along. We're not talking about more than a handful anyway.

[Talvezout]

Lujan will take it easily.

Elaborate.

I agree with Myrensis, namely because the whole state is primarily Democrat (Governor, all three reps, the two senators, 46/70 seats in the State House)

It's pretty much the Dems' election to lose.

[Farnhamia]

I suppose. The national leadership could push it and I imagine some states would go along. We're not talking about more than a handful anyway.

run for every dnc position in every state.

"I am the DNC."

Nah. I have a much larger constituency of 26.077 billion compassionate, cheerful Farnhamians.

[Myrensis]

Lujan will take it easily.

Elaborate.

Clinton won it by 8 points, Trump is unpopular in the state, and it's been trending blue for the last several cycles anyway, with Democrats taking the Legislature, both Senate seats, all 3 House seats, and last year the Governors mansion by double digits.

[Major-Tom]

Sen Tom Udall of New Mexico is retiring before the 2020 election, apparently US Reps Ben Ray Lujan and Deb Haaland are possibly running for the Dems and Steve Pearce, former Lt. Gov. John Sanchez, Mick Rich, and Gavin Clarkson could all run for the Reps.

What does NSG think?

Safe Democratic, case closed. Republicans are a dying political force in NM, and Pearce will likely win the GOP primary, even though his popularity in a general election would be laughably awful.

[Major-Tom]

On another note, Cook Politics must have a senile political team given that they think Colorado's seat is "Lean R" for 2020.

[Shrillland]

On another note, Cook Politics must have a senile political team given that they think Colorado's seat is "Lean R" for 2020.

Yeah, Gardner's eight points behind a generic, but it's still early days, yet.

[San Lumen]

New York doesnt have any statewide elections next year. We will be voted for our state legislature. I hope we can expand on the Democratic Majority in the State Senate.

[Major-Tom]

On another note, Cook Politics must have a senile political team given that they think Colorado's seat is "Lean R" for 2020.

Yeah, Gardner's eight points behind a generic, but it's still early days, yet.

Colorado, too, has shifted from purple to leaning blue just in terms of their general political culture. Gardner is generally a standard Republican on most issues (barring marijuana), so I just don't see him retaining that seat unless the Dems put up a terrible challenger.

[Mystic Warriors]

Nice racism there fox.

[Mystic Warriors]

Yeah, Gardner's eight points behind a generic, but it's still early days, yet.

Colorado, too, has shifted from purple to leaning blue just in terms of their general political culture. Gardner is generally a standard Republican on most issues (barring marijuana), so I just don't see him retaining that seat unless the Dems put up a terrible challenger.

Banning marijuana in Colorado is the same as banning guns in Texas. Auto loss.

[Goldwater]

IMO, Missouri's Governor race could be interesting. Current Governor Parson (R) took over last year after Former Gov Eric Greitens (R) resigned less than halfway through his first term amid double scandals involving using an email list he built as the President of a 501c(3) charity, and an accusation of taking a non-consensual picture of an otherwise consensual extramarital affair. The Lt. Governor is elected on a separate ticket, so make no mistake that Parson was a Greitens ally or visa versa, Parson has undone several changes including re-hiring the education commissioner Greitens stacked a board to fire. If that wasn't enough to anger "Team Greitens" within the GOP, there's not been a whole lot of fallout from the shocking story that a solidly Republican leaning politician turned media figure paid the lawyer who released audio tapes of Greitens affair 50k in a bundles of cash. That person continues his journalism career despite the fact he reported on the Greitens scandal without revealing his own involvement in the story.

Parson has yet to really define himself in the Governor's office - the legislative session ended last year the day Greitens resigned so nothing has been happening legislatively until a few weeks ago. But stylistically he could not be any more different than Greitens. Greitens was above all else a fighter, and was combative on almost all fronts. It will be interesting how it all shakes out. Greitens left office above water with Republicans, and the recent events surrounding Trump/Russia cause Greiten's own "witch hunt" to age better. Parson, if he runs, seems like just the type of guy that will be easy to label an "establishment" Republican and pound his lights out, and with the big wild card out there that is Greitens and how he'll swing his weight.

And yes, you can count me in the group of MO Republicans with whom it does not sit well that Greitens was ran out of town for his issues, but there seems to be no consequences for the cash payment that is actually and obviously corrupt. Greitens two sins were having sex with someone other than his wife (and maybe taking a photo without permission, an allegation that was never substantiated and a photo which no one could produce) and for taking an email list with him when he left his charity. The first is obviously a personal issue. On the latter, it's not that he stole money, or something that is obviously wrong.. But just that he took the donor list he built with him when he left the charity he founded. I understand why that runs afoul of the law, as it violates what a charity is supposed to be, but seems like the type of law violation that it is easy to see any "regular Joe" making as to him it probably felt like "his charity" so it probably would seem like "his list". All in all, to me something that would be dealt with via a fine and be gone for anyone that wasn't such a target from both parties.

TL;DR The MO Governor that is up for re-election wasn't elected himself, but took over for the last one that resigned, and that could make that seat pretty open to a nasty primary fight.

[Blargoblarg]

(Image)





Nice racism there fox.

I wasn't aware that Mexico was 3 countries