Same old song and dance
- Thread starter Veerman_12
- Start date
What is her base? What is her case? Why should someone vote for her?
She never answered any of these questions
I know that, you know that, SHE apparently doesn't know that, because she wants to blame racism and misogyny.
The standard Democrat political tactic in action. "I'm losing, cry racism".
It's one thing to poll badly in non-diverse IA and NH, but it's another to get zero traction nationally.
I do think the Dems would probably do better having one of NV and SC go earlier than one of IA or NH given they better reflect their base voters.
Potentially.
Conversely, if a Dem polls extremely poorly in IA or NH doesn't that just cement the reality that they've got no real shot in a national election?
Not necessarily given how the electoral college is trending. The Ds probably have two paths to choose between:
- Old Midwest path - the traditional rust belt candidates like Bernie and Biden. IA/NH fits this better
- Sun belt path - a pretty different electorate for them, higher minority and more importance on suburban voters in places like Charlotte and Phoenix. Somewhere like NV/SC approximates this much better
Long term, they seem to be trending towards the second path given the secular changes in voting patterns and demography
The marginal states change with every election. It wasn't all that long ago that the parties were still fighting over Ohio, Iowa and Colorado. Those states are off the table now, replaced by places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.
Note that candidates running on super nationalization of health care probably run badly among the sun belt given a core part of their base likes their employer provided health care
Why don't we have all of the primaries on the same day so no one can claim some big momentum going into the next primary? When we have state primaries they don't them county by county. But then we don't have such a thing as the goofy electoral college for state elections either. How is it fair to give one candidate ALL of a state's EC vote whether they win by 1 vote or 1 million votes. That in NO way represents the will of the people.
The finances it takes to compete just in Iowa, NH, or some other small individual state are pretty different than it takes to compete nationally. That was some of the historical logic
But it does feel like the races are becoming more nationalized
No doubt. It's not 1860 anymore, mass media has eliminated the need for the extensive (expensive) campaigning season of yesteryear.
The fact that our campaign season lasts over a year in the modern age is ludicrous but also cost prohibitive.
Candidates should announce they're running in June of the election year, have a few national televised debates, and have the people (not necessarily the party) determine who they want to represent their party in the national election in September.
Then have three national debates to include anyone from any party that will be on the ballot in all or a majority of states (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Constitution) and let the people make an informed decision.
I agree a shorter campaign would be awesome but the oxygen (media time and donations) you can get by going early are too important for people to wait. Plus when was the first Dem debate? Over/under 6 months ago?
I generally disagree with the second point. The American people only get 3 Pres debates, and the candidates are more and more apt to spend less time talking to independent questioners. If the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Constitution Party are only polling at 0.1%-5%, they shouldn't be on the debate stage. The American people deserve more time hearing the two people with a plausible chance to win.
The debates are late in the Pres process; if a 3rd party candidate isn't at 10% or something by September, they don't have a prayer of winning. It would be one thing if they represented some bloc in Congress or something like that. But the 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties have zero power whatsoever at a Federal level, and the debates should reflect that.
How much are the poor polling numbers of smaller parties simply a result of under representation by mainstream media?
The "average" voter isn't even aware the Constitution party exists, much less what their platform is.
Reality is, even if these parties have good ideas and COULD develop a Congressional bloc, they currently have no chance because it makes for better viewing to present two options as viable.
Couldn’t tell you,,,,,I would guess 20-30
Screen ID’s don’t last long on the Rivals Blue&Gold site when you are an Irish hater
Last edited:
If I was Trump I wouldn’t agree to any debates. Why as sitting president do you want to give your challenger equal status on a stage in front of the American people ???
With the Anti Trump media controlling the events they are not something so would agree to
Because he is a civil servant, not a king. He works for the people and debates are about determining who can better the nation.
It's not up to him whether he debates or not.
If you don't use the early primaries to whittle down the field, you might not get a true reflection of the nations preference. With 10+ candidates, the votes get spread out to people who aren't going to win. Those votes gradually move to the ultimate winner who might finish 3rd with votes spread out. There is a reason for all the "old time" methods about elections.
Of course it is,,,,I don’t think there is anything in the constitution saying a candidate must agree to televised debates. If he doesn’t show up what’s going to happen???
If someone with a name and a platform runs as an indy or a 3rd party, they belong on the stage if they have traction. Perot gained traction in a much tougher media environment and he deserved to be on the stage. Note that he was an independent, not a 3rd party candidate in 1992.
Johnson got tons of attention in 2016 and barely broke 3%, and you can make a pretty good argument that much of that support came from protest votes. There's also some truth that if Johnson really had backing, he'd have a lot of ads/campaign driven support.
The reality is that the minor parties don't have meaningful traction, and the US is set up so that it will only ever have two viable political parties/blocs due to the lack of party list voting for Congressional representation.
If you want 3rd and 4th parties to be seriously considered, you'd have to amend the Constitution to change how we vote for the House to be something more like Germany or Israel.
You're right that he can do what he wants.
But it allows your opponent and the media to go dump on you for hiding from your opponent.
We have effectively compressed the primary calendar down as is. It's not like we're normally wondering who the nominee will be 120 days after Iowa votes.
The media doesn't control the debates. The two parties do. The debate Commission is run by Rs and Ds. They pick locations, moderators, rules, etc.
Also, you're on equal footing, you're the nominees of the two major parties.
The nominee is usually well known by April.....less than 6 months. If it takes longer, it should.
Like they haven’t been dumping on him for everything he has done since he took the oath of office????
When you are top dog why give your opponent the limelight on stage with you. Go hold a Rally in Arrowhead and fill it up and trash the Socialists
The people who watch his rallies aren't the marginal voters he is looking to win over
If you think it rallies the base in some meaningful way, maybe. But you can do that with all sorts of other "the media is unfair" stuff without making yourself look incredibly weak to a subset of marginal voters
Similar threads
