|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jan 17, 2024 20:30:29 GMT -5
It's not squirrel pizza.
|
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jan 17, 2024 21:37:00 GMT -5
The election is serious business, and it's being treated like a UN popularity contest. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jan 17, 2024 21:39:12 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to 2028. The old Bozos will be gone. Maybe. If one of the old Bozos wins in 2024, which seems to be a terrifying likelihood, he will be term-limited and ineligible in 2028. But, barring death, the other old Bozo could try again in 2028. |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,870 
|
Post by Dub on Jan 18, 2024 0:40:21 GMT -5
I meant to get this completed and posted earlier but it been a busy day.
The questions raised by PaulK annd others are interesting and they get to the heart of American democracy.
As we know, the U.S. Constitution makes no reference to political parties and (I seem to recall) many of the nation's founders were opposed to the idea of political parties.
I may be wrong but wasn't there a time, early on, when people only voted for the office of President and the runner-up became Vice President?
In any case, a political party is a private (not government mandated) organization formed for the purpose of promoting governing policies and finding candidates who are willing to run for office and support the party's policies. A properly operating political party is basically a special interest group with its own agenda.
Prior to having open primaries, party members met to assemble an agreed upon list of party principles and goals. Once that had been accomplished, the party would try to find men of stature who would agree to stand for election in support of the party's platform.
Of course, that was then and this is now.
Today, flawed egomaniacs of all stripes seeking both power and public exposure announce that they will run for office and which party's slate they expect to occupy. The parties have little choice about the matter and the "platform" on which a candidate runs is dictated by the candidate. The party just has to suck it up. Its primary function becomes fundraising and influence peddling.
The Iowa caucuses are a holdover from the days of meaningful party politics. The way caucuses are run is set by the party, not by statute. I've never attended
a Republican caucus but I've attended many Democratic caucuses. I've even led some.
The main business at a (D) caucus is the formulation of the platform. Caucus attendees read and discuss/debate platform issues submitted by the party central committee and any “planks” proposed by attendees. At the end, a full, locally approved, platform is submitted to the central party as representing the will of the local caucus. After that work has been completed, caucus attendees form smaller “preference” groups in support of specific candidates. A minimum percentage is required for a group to be “viable.” The records of support are then forwarded to the central party along with the platform. The final bit of business is to select delegates to the district and state conventions from among the attendees. No one can be said to have won Iowa’s nomination until the district and state conventions have been held. Of course the media use data from caucus night to forecast a winner because that’s what media does. By the time a candidate is officially named, no one cares any more since all the open primaries have been held.
One interesting aspect of the caucuses is that only interested, motivated voters attend. They are held at the precinct level so attendees are actually discussing issues with their neighbors. Attendees have voices because they care enough to do an evening’s work in good faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 18, 2024 4:47:19 GMT -5
the "platform" on which a candidate runs is dictated by the candidate. I'm not sure this is true. I don't think the candidate has much to do with the platform nor the policies enacted when they win. It's not a conspiracy theory to observe that the government is currently run by the unelected professionals. And they don't even change drastically with a changing of the party. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 18, 2024 6:05:48 GMT -5
the "platform" on which a candidate runs is dictated by the candidate. I'm not sure this is true. I don't think the candidate has much to do with the platform nor the policies enacted when they win. It's not a conspiracy theory to observe that the government is currently run by the unelected professionals. And they don't even change drastically with a changing of the party. Bingo! The purpose of getting elected these days is almost never about service. It's about making money. Which is a huge part of both the common appeal and over the top rage filled opposition to Trump. Really funny how that works. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 18, 2024 10:52:40 GMT -5
... The Iowa caucuses are a holdover from the days of meaningful party politics. The way caucuses are run is set by the party, not by statute. I've never attended a Republican caucus but I've attended many Democratic caucuses. I've even led some. One interesting aspect of the caucuses is that only interested, motivated voters attend. They are held at the precinct level so attendees are actually discussing issues with their neighbors. Attendees have voices because they care enough to do an evening’s work in good faith. Sadly, in terms of the theme of this post, the Iowa Democratic Caucuses have now approved mail-in ballots. With mail in participation. No need to meet your neighbor and discuss the candidates and issues. What it was now isn't. Just another. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 18, 2024 12:25:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 18, 2024 13:09:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jan 18, 2024 13:10:08 GMT -5
the "platform" on which a candidate runs is dictated by the candidate. I'm not sure this is true. I don't think the candidate has much to do with the platform nor the policies enacted when they win. It's not a conspiracy theory to observe that the government is currently run by the unelected professionals. And they don't even change drastically with a changing of the party. It wasn't true until now. As Dub said, the "planks" that make up the platform were discussed, debated, and voted on at the local precinct level, then gradually up to the state and national levels. The Democratic party still does this. In 2020, the Republican party officially decided to abandon its long-held platform positions and principles, and switch to "whatever Trump says," or "whatever Trump said last." The only principle they have is to support Trump. |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,870
|
Post by Dub on Jan 18, 2024 14:01:48 GMT -5
the "platform" on which a candidate runs is dictated by the candidate. I'm not sure this is true. I don't think the candidate has much to do with the platform nor the policies enacted when they win. It's not a conspiracy theory to observe that the government is currently run by the unelected professionals. And they don't even change drastically with a changing of the party. Well, yeah, it’s hard to argue with that. I was referring to campaign platforms, not governing policy. As we’ve seen, those two are rarely the same. Wasn’t it the last election cycle when the GOP campaign platform was “whatever President Trump wants?” This happens with the Dems too. It isn’t just a GOP thing. |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,870
|
Post by Dub on Jan 18, 2024 14:12:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure this is true. I don't think the candidate has much to do with the platform nor the policies enacted when they win. It's not a conspiracy theory to observe that the government is currently run by the unelected professionals. And they don't even change drastically with a changing of the party. Bingo! The purpose of getting elected these days is almost never about service. It's about making money. Which is a huge part of both the common appeal and over the top rage filled opposition to Trump. Really funny how that works. Yes, it’s the money and the power. Not power to further our national well being, just personal money and power. As I recall, neither the Clintons nor the Obamas were especially wealthy when they entered the White House but they seemed wealthy when they departed. Of course the Bushes and the Trumps were already wealthy when they arrived. Parties no longer control candidates, they become the lap dogs of the strongest candidate. I’m talking about campaigns. Governance is a whole other thing. |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,870
|
Post by Dub on Jan 18, 2024 14:37:06 GMT -5
... The Iowa caucuses are a holdover from the days of meaningful party politics. The way caucuses are run is set by the party, not by statute. I've never attended a Republican caucus but I've attended many Democratic caucuses. I've even led some. One interesting aspect of the caucuses is that only interested, motivated voters attend. They are held at the precinct level so attendees are actually discussing issues with their neighbors. Attendees have voices because they care enough to do an evening’s work in good faith. Sadly, in terms of the theme of this post, the Iowa Democratic Caucuses have now approved mail-in ballots. With mail in participation. No need to meet your neighbor and discuss the candidates and issues. What it was now isn't. Just another. Sadly, this is true. When Iowa first started getting first-in-the-nation status, the state’s voting closely matched the national agenda. It was a good indicator of national sentiment at the polls. I don’t mean that Iowa’s population was representative, only that the nation’s electoral practices produced a result similar to Iowa’s. This year, in response to complaints that Iowa is way out of sync with national trends and interests, President Biden—as titular head of the Democratic Party—prohibited Iowa’s Democrats from being first. Iowa’s outsized influence seemed stupid given that its electorate is no longer similar to the nation as a whole. Iowa’s Democratic Party responded in a very disappointing way. State pride and special interest being what it is, Iowa has laws requiring its caucuses to be first in the nation. This is stupid since there is no law requiring either political parties or caucuses. Through my years working at the precinct level in Chicago and as an elected official in Iowa I’ve learned that real democracy only happens among knowledgeable, interested, and committed people who are willing to spend time together figuring out what best meets their needs. The cool thing is, given an involved electorate, good things can actually happen. I have to keep reminding myself of this. It’s so easy to forget. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 18, 2024 15:05:06 GMT -5
"I’m talking about campaigns. Governance is a whole other thing."
I don't think we do governance in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jan 18, 2024 19:48:39 GMT -5
But isn’t that the way? Always? I’ve said it before, we had one PM, a Liberal, who over the course of 10 years as finance minister and then PM managed to balance the budget by careful cuts and careful tax increases. It made sense. He actually got to the point where they were collecting a surplus, which he applied to the debt. Our debt dropped enormously. Then the populist conservative came in and said, “you’re paying too much tax, look, they have a surplus! I’ll cut taxes!” And bam, we were back to deficit spending again. I’m sure if it had been a left leaning guy coming, he’d have said, “look, we’re collecting more than we need in taxes, let’s give everyone free daycare,” or some such thing. Want to get elected? Offer free stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 18, 2024 21:43:22 GMT -5
If I’m elected there will be FREE BEER !
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 19, 2024 5:06:51 GMT -5
But isn’t that the way? Always? I’ve said it before, we had one PM, a Liberal, who over the course of 10 years as finance minister and then PM managed to balance the budget by careful cuts and careful tax increases. It made sense. He actually got to the point where they were collecting a surplus, which he applied to the debt. Our debt dropped enormously. Then the populist conservative came in and said, “you’re paying too much tax, look, they have a surplus! I’ll cut taxes!” And bam, we were back to deficit spending again. I’m sure if it had been a left leaning guy coming, he’d have said, “look, we’re collecting more than we need in taxes, let’s give everyone free daycare,” or some such thing. Want to get elected? Offer free stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 19, 2024 5:56:42 GMT -5
It's hard to state how crazy I think it is that we believe with such vehemence that we will argue, protest, riot, lose friendships, write volumes ...
...in a system that in a population of more than 300 million people we are given a choice -- that we have no practical say in -- of Joe Biden vs Donald Trump.
And I could comfort myself in the knowledge that our country isn't a monarchy and, as such, the president is (or should be) no more powerful than either of the other branches. Except that the overwhelming majority of our population doesn't believe that, or act on that premise, and the fact that they don't and we still end up with Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump is even scarier.
And, sure, we'll probably end up with the choice of Michelle Obama ... in the same way we ended up with our choice of Bushes or Clintons ... and that comforts me not at all. It just emphasizes all the more that we believe in the royalty that we are not.
I have checked out. Nothing happening today has me any more inclined to check back in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jan 19, 2024 8:40:18 GMT -5
[/quote]Sadly, in terms of the theme of this post, the Iowa Democratic Caucuses have now approved mail-in ballots. With mail in participation. No need to meet your neighbor and discuss the candidates and issues. What it was now isn't. Just another.”
Epaul, OR has had vote by mail for over thirty years now, and having experienced both vote by mail, and vote in person at a polling place, I can say that vote by mail is waaaaaay better than vote in person.
Mike
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 19, 2024 10:20:58 GMT -5
You missed my point, Mike. I offered no opinion on mail in voting one way or another. My point was that what once made the Iowa Democratic caucus system unique* was no longer the case.
* see Dub's post. Mine can be read in no other context.
|
|
