|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Elections are won in the primaries | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's been tried. Where and when? Please substantiate. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Could such a candidate even win? After all, the Republican machine will tear a "progressive" candidate to shreds and the Republicans in the Republican district will vote for the "real" Republican. So what's the point of running such a candidate? Yes -- if he gets every democrat/liberal/progressive in the district to register republican for the primary and vote for him, while the republicans split the ticket. The point is that the general election is being hijacked by gerrymandering to effectively be decided by the republican primary -- so take the general election to their primary.
Should a miracle occur and this candidate win, what would be the effects? The rules of Congress indicate that an elected Republican will then put other Republicans in charge of the House and Senate, ensuring that no "progressive" bills will ever see the light of day. Should this candidate fight against this tendency, they will be punished by the Republicans in power, making them ineffective. So again, what is the point of running such a candidate? He can change party. He could also lose to the democrat candidate. Goal achieved either way.
Exactly what is the point of running a "progressive" Republican? To win the republican primary against republican candidates who split the republican votes, with the votes of democrats, independents, progressives, etc who register to vote in the republican party ... (this is the part of the plan both you, NoNukes and some others seem to be missing). Take a hypothetical: the district is gerrymandered 55% republican and 45% democrat. Running in the general election the republican will win 55% of the vote to 45% of the vote for the democrat. Running in the republican primary against two republican candidates who split the 55% up 30% for one, 25% for the other, and the democrat, progressive, liberal, independent candidate wins the 45% of the "democrat" votes by those people registered to vote in the primary. Last time I checked 45% would win the primary, and then you would have two democrat, progressive, liberal candidates running in the general election. It really is a simple concept. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the other just from South Carolina where a resounding 2/3 support a minimum wage increase http://www.thestate.com/...ogs/the-buzz/article13757501.html This is why the democrats/DNC have been shooting themselves in the foot since 2014 when they could have run on a living minimum wage platform. You get similar results for universal healthcare (medicare for all) and paid family leave. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I did. ... Cop out, it should be easy peasy to repeat.
... Did you not read the post? ... Nope, I lose interest when you go off on a misunderstanding to post something lengthy and irrelevant. So Who, where, when Did a candidate from the other party try to run in a gerrymandered district primary for the party it was gerrymandered to protect, AND try to get all the people in the district to register for that party so they could vote for him? Be specific. Both parts are required. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In a gerrymandered district? You seem to think that there would be enough Democrats to do this. That's the point behind the gerrymandering: There aren't enough. Seems you still fail to understand. In a district gerrymandered so that republicans have a slim majority, then a primary with two or more republicans can split the republican vote and leave the democrat with a higher vote tally, ie ... win. To spread the republican votes out to win as many districts as possible they need narrow margins over democrats and then pile a very high majority of democrats into as few districts as possible. That makes the gerrymandered districts vulnerable if everyone in the district votes in the republican primary, not just the republicans, and a candidate runs on a progressive, liberal, independent platform, in the primary against 2 or more republicans.
Which is why it doesn't work. The world is not simple. Sometimes a simple plan is all you need. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would argue much longer than 2014 these issues would have worked in their favor. I can't see how they don't calculate these polls. Yes, Occupy Wallstreet was before that and they tapped into major interest in these issues. They formed a focus to discuss them and promote them. We now talk about 1%ers as a result. But the 2014 race to my mind could have built on the pervasive protests for $15/hr, and brought democrat voters to the non-presidential election, and it could have made a significant difference to that election. That is why Bernie got massive support for it, and he went further to a living wage, arguing that a person who works a 40 hour week should be able to afford the costs of living without needing government support, and that companies like Walmart that pay lower wages are being subsidized by the taxpayers to provide medicaid and welfare (food stamps, housing assistance, etc). Issues that had/have support across party lines, so an independent progressive candidate running on such a platform will find some support from republicans. If that candidate runs in the republican primary, and gets everyone in the district to vote in the republican primary, they could win some republican votes as well as the democrat/liberal votes, especially against 2 or more republican candidates. Especially if he runs on public donations rather than corporate money. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
For crying out loud...it's your own argument. Are you incapable of defending it? Curiously I do not need to defend your misinterpretation of my argument. You said it's been tried, but you can't provide the details to show that what I have proposed has been tried. You may think you have, but that is your misinterpretation again. That's why I said:
quote: So far no response but evasion. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Showing your lack of understanding of my position you say:
Who's going to run for the Democratic candidacy? How are you going to prevent the liberals whom you want to vote for your phony Republican from voting for the Democrat? After all, the district is gerrymandered: There aren't that many Democratic voters to begin with. You are proposing running two strong liberal candidates: One as a Republican and one as a Democrat. How does that not immediately split the liberal vote? How can you "split the liberal vote" in the republican primary where only one independent progressive is running? Be specific. And you don't seem to understand gerrymandering, because this ...
... After all, the district is gerrymandered: There aren't that many Democratic voters to begin with. ... The republican districts are set up to have a republican majority, yes, but not by too much, because they have to spread their republican votes into majorities in as many districts as possible. That means +/-55% republican to +/-45% democrat in the republican districts while crowding as many democrats as possible into as few districts as possible, +/-95%democrat to +/-5% republican in the democrat districts. This makes them vulnerable if the republican vote is split between two republican candidates in the republican primary and an independent progress is running in the republican primary WITH all the liberal voters registered to vote in that primary ... then 45% can win over a split of the 55% ... in the republican primary. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024