The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Collatis]

Democrats Passing on Corporate Money Snag New Endorsement

[Gauthier]

Democrats Passing on Corporate Money Snag New Endorsement

If they can raise a shitload of clean money then they're likely to attract more candidates looking for an edge.

[Corrian]

Democrats Passing on Corporate Money Snag New Endorsement

Kinda funny there is a PAC to end Citizen's United...Which seemed to create a lot of PAC's.

[Collatis]

Democrats Passing on Corporate Money Snag New Endorsement

Kinda funny there is a PAC to end Citizen's United...Which seemed to create a lot of PAC's.

If you can't beat them, join them!

[Corrian]

Kinda funny there is a PAC to end Citizen's United...Which seemed to create a lot of PAC's.

If you can't beat them, join them!

To be fair, though, it seems like a good cause.

[MERIZoC]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article175422391.html?anf=TOP_STORIES

On the economy, many black voters see little difference between GOP, Dems

[Tyrassueb]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article175422391.html?anf=TOP_STORIES

On the economy, many black voters see little difference between GOP, Dems

Not really surprised about that one.

[Ngelmish]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

[Corrian]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

Not sure if I really approve of this, since it just feels off to me.

[Telconi]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

Dems: "Get money out of politics!"

Also Dems: If you're not literally rolling in cash, you can't have the biggest blue state.

[Ngelmish]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

Not sure if I really approve of this, since it just feels off to me.

I was initially opposed to this, and I still lean against it, but after further reflection I don't think it changes the dynamic that substantially. The first couple of contests are still the only real chance for breakout candidacies or for known, but disregarded, quantities to punch above their weight. Primaries, by nature, cull quickly.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

Dems: "Get money out of politics!"

Also Dems: If you're not literally rolling in cash, you can't have the biggest blue state.

I mean, California is enormous and has multiple, expensive media markets. Without structural campaign reforms, including, yes, campaign finance, it's impossible to take advantage of that without a lot of money. It's not necessarily hypocritical. That said, I would be very interested to know whose idea this originally was, a megadonor, a California politician who wants to run for president, or state legislators who sincerely think that California deserves a bigger imprint on the state of the national party.

[Telconi]

Not sure if I really approve of this, since it just feels off to me.

I was initially opposed to this, and I still lean against it, but after further reflection I don't think it changes the dynamic that substantially. The first couple of contests are still the only real chance for breakout candidacies or for known, but disregarded, quantities to punch above their weight. Primaries, by nature, cull quickly.

Dems: "Get money out of politics!"

Also Dems: If you're not literally rolling in cash, you can't have the biggest blue state.

I mean, California is enormous and has multiple, expensive media markets. Without structural campaign reforms, including, yes, campaign finance, it's impossible to take advantage of that without a lot of money. It's not necessarily hypocritical. That said, I would be very interested to know whose idea this originally was, a megadonor, a California politician who wants to run for president, or state legislators who sincerely think that California deserves a bigger imprint on the state of the national party.

Well, it would be interesting to learn who, but it rwally doesn't matter IMO. A bad idea I's bad no matter who's mind it sprang from.

[Ngelmish]

I was initially opposed to this, and I still lean against it, but after further reflection I don't think it changes the dynamic that substantially. The first couple of contests are still the only real chance for breakout candidacies or for known, but disregarded, quantities to punch above their weight. Primaries, by nature, cull quickly.



I mean, California is enormous and has multiple, expensive media markets. Without structural campaign reforms, including, yes, campaign finance, it's impossible to take advantage of that without a lot of money. It's not necessarily hypocritical. That said, I would be very interested to know whose idea this originally was, a megadonor, a California politician who wants to run for president, or state legislators who sincerely think that California deserves a bigger imprint on the state of the national party.

Well, it would be interesting to learn who, but it rwally doesn't matter IMO. A bad idea I's bad no matter who's mind it sprang from.

I'm mostly interested from the point of view of what it would say about the motivation behind the proposal, how good faith was it.

[Hittanryan]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

To play devil's advocate, why should Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide for the rest of the country? The field always narrows after the first few states; by the time the last few states hold their primaries they get virtually no say at all who gets to lead each party.

The US campaign cycle is absurdly long anyway. One of the reason there's so much money in US politics is that our campaign season never ends. Candidates and incumbents alike are always fundraising to buy millions of dollars worth of ad slots on TV. We really don't need six months to pick a Presidential candidate.

[Major-Tom]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article175422391.html?anf=TOP_STORIES

On the economy, many black voters see little difference between GOP, Dems

Maybe they're done being economically screwed over?

Nah, nah that clearly isn't it.

[Tahar Joblis]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

The Democratic primary is not winner-take-all, so California isn't going to step in and end the contest early. California moving earlier makes for more front-loading.

IMO, it will balance the calendar more, geographically. The 2008 primary had a lot of Southern states lined up early in the contest and a lot of Western states late in the game.

[Collatis]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554147818/california-moves-up-2020-primary-elections-to-march

So California really is pushing up it's primary for 2020. In practical terms, regardless of any stated or actual motives on the part of the legislators who voted for this, it's going to disproportionately favor whichever candidates are the strongest fundraisers. California is expensive as hell to compete in. Conversely this may make Iowa and New Hampshire even more crucial than they usually are for lesser known candidates, or candidates who simply aren't as flush with cash. If they can't notch a win in one or both of those (South Carolina remains an asterisk in this process of course, because it'll likely vault a different candidate to the forefront) they won't have the sheer financial muscle to even seriously compete in California.

Added to that the high probability that the initial primary will be very crowded, to the point that the winner of the Iowa caucus will perhaps need a threshold as low as say, 20% to come in first, the prospect that we'll get at least one long-shot candidate in a good place to be seriously considered, is actually higher than it might otherwise be. A fairly interesting development.

To play devil's advocate, why should Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide for the rest of the country? The field always narrows after the first few states; by the time the last few states hold their primaries they get virtually no say at all who gets to lead each party.

The US campaign cycle is absurdly long anyway. One of the reason there's so much money in US politics is that our campaign season never ends. Candidates and incumbents alike are always fundraising to buy millions of dollars worth of ad slots on TV. We really don't need six months to pick a Presidential candidate.

N A T I O N A L
P R I M A R Y

[Corrian]

The Democratic primary is not winner-take-all, so California isn't going to step in and end the contest early. California moving earlier makes for more front-loading.

IMO, it will balance the calendar more, geographically. The 2008 primary had a lot of Southern states lined up early in the contest and a lot of Western states late in the game.

I dunno, though. I kinda feel like a big state like that shouldn't have a balance towards one person early.

Like, say, Kamala Harris.

[Napkiraly]

The Democratic primary is not winner-take-all, so California isn't going to step in and end the contest early. California moving earlier makes for more front-loading.

IMO, it will balance the calendar more, geographically. The 2008 primary had a lot of Southern states lined up early in the contest and a lot of Western states late in the game.

I dunno, though. I kinda feel like a big state like that shouldn't have a balance towards one person early.

Like, say, Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris is one of the worst picks the Democrats could go for. Also not going to lie, I can't trust her as much on account of her not being a mother. Though that goes for any childless politician tbf.

[Collatis]

I dunno, though. I kinda feel like a big state like that shouldn't have a balance towards one person early.

Like, say, Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris is one of the worst picks the Democrats could go for. Also not going to lie, I can't trust her as much on account of her not being a mother. Though that goes for any childless politician tbf.

The Andrea Leadsom approach.

[Napkiraly]

Kamala Harris is one of the worst picks the Democrats could go for. Also not going to lie, I can't trust her as much on account of her not being a mother. Though that goes for any childless politician tbf.

The Andrea Leadsom approach.

Not wrong to be honest.

[Senkaku]

Though that goes for any childless politician tbf.

[Corrian]

I dunno, though. I kinda feel like a big state like that shouldn't have a balance towards one person early.

Like, say, Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris is one of the worst picks the Democrats could go for. Also not going to lie, I can't trust her as much on account of her not being a mother. Though that goes for any childless politician tbf.

I could really not give a crap if someone is childless or not. That's such a non-issue for me. They can be Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, childless, ect as far as I care.

[Albrenia]

From a practicality point of view, a Christian candidate seems most logical, since going with an Atheist is targeted by 'faithless' and 'godless' attacks, and other religions would get even worse.

[Valrifell]

From a practicality point of view, a Christian candidate seems most logical, since going with an Atheist is targeted by 'faithless' and 'godless' attacks, and other religions would get even worse.

They also have to he the right kind of Christian, JFK got a lot of shit for that iirc.