|
I mean, if you want to ignore the 20-odd years of actual election results where the Green Party had regular access to like 85-90% of voters' ballots and whiffed it every time, then ok sure, this year definitely would've been their year to hit 5% with Howie Hawkins, a candidate so mediocre that even Susan Sarandon isn't voting for him in whichever solid blue state she lives in
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:Overturning Roe V Wade would destroy the republican party. Their next target would be legal contraception. Don't think it would destroy the conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Seriously, at what point do the Green Party's failures become the Green Party's fault? At the point where objections to their presence on the ballot materially preserve open and fair elections rather than limit them. For example, if there was a risk of Wisconsin or Pennsylvania voters being unsure of the actual identity of who they were being asked to vote for. The point at which it's reasonable to try to kick them off the ballot is if they've violated the spirit of the law and there's actual resulting concerns about the integrity of the election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It was submitted before the deadline, but it was submitted via fax and was therefore able to be ignored by notaries until after the deadline, which counts as them missing the deadline for unexplained reasons. nah, that's not quite it. they needed to send in the affidavits for both candidates appearing on the ballot with the signature petitions and have it filed in person they didn't bother sending in the actual candidate affidavit for the vice presidential nominee and only faxed over the presidential nominee completely independent of the signatures even in the one ruling they got in their favor for putting them back on the ballot despite loving up, they had to drop the vice presidential candidate off the ballots entirely because they botched that one so hard
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:I'm sure it's the Democrats' fault that the Greens ignored multiple requests to provide their vice presidential nominee's address in Wisconsin so that the ballots could properly be updated. at the same point when the only barriers to be on a ballot are the ones to keep an election fair and free. There was zero 'fraud' or 'confusion' in a vp address changing within the same city during petitioning, nobody contested the signatures themselves. To put it in perspective, do you think if Harris moved during the petitioning (not an issue because rules like these protect the wealthy who have things like home ownership, obviously) any state would throw the party entirely off the ballot? If they did would you go 'yep that's what ya get'?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Their next target would be legal contraception. Don't think it would destroy the conservatives. Yeah but if you think about it there would be way less single issue contraception voters than there are single issue abortion voters. Some of them hate women, sure, but a lot of it is pure shock value and doctored images of fetuses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:
Do you really think this Green candidate moved because they were transient? I get that you hate the Democratic party but anyone who does campaign for a living and wants to be taken seriously can follow the usually very low bars to entry into the race. edit: That's why you get way more signatures than are needed. It's why you make sure you follow signature rules and make copies of signature sheets. It's why you read the rules. This is true from city councilor to President.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I wonder if this might also be self-sabotaging for the Dems because it might mean people who would have voted Green for president but Democratic downballot simply don't turn up. Judging by the polling we have seen (Howie hanging around 1% in various polled states) I'm not super worried about it. Anecdotally, I have been calling and texting Enviro Dems for several weeks and have only run into 2 people who have stated they won't volunteer because of either being aggrieved about Bernie or upset that Biden is not Left enough. I've spoken with several hundred people at this point so that, again anecdotally, roughly matches with what the polling is showing. These are Dems from lists that are explicitly flagged as folks overtly concerned with the environment, so I'd expect it to be pretty fertile ground for the Greens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Seriously, at what point do the Green Party's failures become the Green Party's fault? It's super cool of you to not actually engage with the discussion at hand and instead pretend we're arguing about something entirely different
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
How are u posted:Judging by the polling we have seen (Howie hanging around 1% in various polled states) I'm not super worried about it. Anecdotally, I have been calling and texting Enviro Dems for several weeks and have only run into 2 people who have stated they won't volunteer because of either being aggrieved about Bernie or upset that Biden is not Left enough. I've spoken with several hundred people at this point so that, again anecdotally, roughly matches with what the polling is showing. These are Dems from lists that are explicitly flagged as folks overtly concerned with the environment, so I'd expect it to be pretty fertile ground for the Greens. Also, are there no sufficiently leftist candidates on the lower part of the ballot? you would see the results there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It's super cool of you to not actually engage with the discussion at hand and instead pretend we're arguing about something entirely different You're the one claiming that there is a secret groundswell of Green Party voters who will feel dispirited and disenfranchised by the Democrats' evil machinations, when in fact the Green Party candidate barely pulled 1% in a contest between the most and second-most disliked Presidential candidates in history in 2016. I generally don't engage with false premises. The Green Party keeps failing cause they cannot understand that the way to build a successful movement is not to repeatedly run for the Presidency and fail. They're either too impatient or too dumb to build from the ground up. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Sep 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:You're the one claiming that there is a secret groundswell of Green Party voters who will feel dispirited and disenfranchised by the Democrats' evil machinations, when in fact the Green Party candidate barely pulled 1% in a contest between the most and second-most disliked Presidential candidates in history in 2016. Fritz Coldcockin, I do not know why you continue to engage in D&D if you're not going to read the actual posts that people are actually making and instead decide what they wrote by making it up in your head. Between this and accusing people of saying that the Greens did nothing wrong (which is not what people ever loving said) I don't think you're actually reading beyond, like, three words into people's posts before deciding what the rest of their post must be saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
Okay, Somfin. Please, clarify this for me then.quote:Again, and I can't believe I'm having to explain this to a bunch of posters in the election polling thread after 2016, we do not actually know what the outcome would be in a fair election, and now we quite explicitly won't, because that outcome is being obscured by people deliberately preventing a fair election from happening. How does this imply anything less than "the Greens have a silent groundswell of support that Democrats are purposefully suppressing" And please, try to formulate a response that doesn't include a ton of condescension. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Sep 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Okay, Somfin. Please, clarify this for me then. Well it's entirely possible that the democrats are just trying to eke out every available percentage point since they fear getting 2016'ed again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:Well it's entirely possible that the democrats are just trying to eke out every available percentage point since they fear getting 2016'ed again. Or that the GOP is using the Greens as a cudgel to impair ballot distribution, as we saw in Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Okay, Somfin. Please, clarify this for me then. It's really hard to not be condescending when you bold in a section that ends with a comma, but refuse to acknowledge the last bit of the sentence which materially changes the meaning of the sentence as a whole. My post does not imply anything about the Greens having a "silent groundswell of support that the Democrats are purposefully suppressing" as much as you are trying to infer it, and you would have to be projecting quite a bit of additional meaning to find that in there. Here is what I actually said: the Greens are absolutely being purposefully suppressed and this purposeful suppression will prevent the Democrats from having to grapple with what support the Green party actually has. This statement does not imply that this support secretly is massive or game-changing; only that, if there is no election with the Green party on the ballot, its support cannot be accurately assessed. It would help you to read what the Umberto (  ) emote actually refers to (I notice that it's been excluded from the quoted post, despite that being a core part of what I was saying)- it is a quote from Umberto Eco's essay, Ur-Fascism, specifically about the deliberate conflation of strength and weakness in one's enemies. In this case, I am using it to refer to Democrats making the Green party out to be simultaneously dangerous enough that suppressing them is a decisive victory for the party, but also so weak that their numbers never mattered and their suppression will change nothing. Blocking the Green party will allegedly shore up left-wing support for Biden, but also they were polling at 0% nationally and never would have mattered- these two statements are in obvious, direct, and explicit conflict, in precisely the way that Umberto Eco was describing.I do not think that the Green party has a silent secret mass movement waiting in the wings, and I have never said that, and you are wrong to infer that from a post that does not imply it. I do think that if there was such a show of support, the Democrats would have to acknowledge it; since that performance will not be measured, they will not have to acknowledge it, whatever it happens to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Wait a sec doesn't this mean Pennsylvania's electoral result won't be finalized for three days straight!? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Wait a sec doesn't this mean Pennsylvania's electoral result won't be finalized for three days straight!? Potentially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Wait a sec doesn't this mean Pennsylvania's electoral result won't be finalized for three days straight!? Finalized yes, but if it's going to be called before that if one candidates lead is higher than one can reasonablely expect to make up from late ballots. The same way they call races long before all the in person votes are counted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:From Kevin Drum: Single issue abortion voters sending america into fascism would be too on the goddamn nose
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It would help you to read what the Umberto ( IMO this is a huge stretch of this Ur-fascism principle. There’s nothing conflicting about Dems saying Green Party support is marginal, but that they don’t want to risk losing even marginal support given how things went down in 2016. This is very different than the actual manifestation of this type of fascist behavior we’re seeing in 2020 politics of drumming up fear of antifa super soldiers while also bragging about how easily the soyboy liberal protesters would be crushed by Trump’s strong forces if he really wanted to. It’s a fundamentally different kind of weakness between the two — the Green’s weakness (in the Dems’ eyes) stems from their objectively incompetent administrative actions, where’s the Dems’ weakness (in chuds’ eyes) stems from their intrinsic immoral and subhuman essence which is completely unchanging regardless of what actions they take. Note - this is not a defense of the Dems fighting to keep Greens off the ballot, just a quibble over how this action fits (or IMO does not fit) into a fascist framework
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:IMO this is a huge stretch of this Ur-fascism principle. There’s nothing conflicting about Dems saying Green Party support is marginal, but that they don’t want to risk losing even marginal support given how things went down in 2016. This is very different than the actual manifestation of this type of fascist behavior we’re seeing in 2020 politics of drumming up fear of antifa super soldiers while also bragging about how easily the soyboy liberal protesters would be crushed by Trump’s strong forces if he really wanted to. It’s a fundamentally different kind of weakness between the two — the Green’s weakness (in the Dems’ eyes) stems from their objectively incompetent administrative actions, where’s the Dems’ weakness (in chuds’ eyes) stems from their intrinsic immoral and subhuman essence which is completely unchanging regardless of what actions they take. I get that quibble, and it makes sense; in my post, I was mostly referring to the justifications for removing the Greens, that the removal is very meaningful (because Greens would inherently damage Democrat results) and also meaningless (because Greens are weak and useless), rather than to the Greens themselves. To me, the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is purely one of degree, not of form; perhaps it doesn't qualify right now, but if it is allowed to continue and calcify, it could, and the line between the two would be really fuckin' blurry. I do think that what you're saying is legit, and thank you for the chance to add a bit of errata to my post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I get that quibble, and it makes sense; in my post, I was mostly referring to the justifications for removing the Greens, that the removal is very meaningful (because Greens would inherently damage Democrat results) and also meaningless (because Greens are weak and useless), rather than to the Greens themselves. To me, the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is purely one of degree, not of form; perhaps it doesn't qualify right now, but if it is allowed to continue and calcify, it could, and the line between the two would be really fuckin' blurry. the difference between "oxygen is good" and "oxygen is poison" is a matter of degree but that doesn't make a lunatic screeching about how can you breathe in poison any saner
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the difference between "oxygen is good" and "oxygen is poison" is a matter of degree but that doesn't make a lunatic screeching about how can you breathe in poison any saner It's a good thing I wasn't saying that, then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
This is more of a political-system thing, but: Have third parties ever tried to work out a deal with a particular politician, on the theory of "We will nominate you on our ticket, too, and in return we expect you to let us have veto power over your Secretary of the Interior/Attorney General/whatever picks" - presumably you would have to make the ask moderate, but this seems like a place where a third party could have meaningful power under our current system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This is more of a political-system thing, but: Have third parties ever tried to work out a deal with a particular politician, on the theory of "We will nominate you on our ticket, too, and in return we expect you to let us have veto power over your Secretary of the Interior/Attorney General/whatever picks" - presumably you would have to make the ask moderate, but this seems like a place where a third party could have meaningful power under our current system. There are no third parties in the United Stares with actual blocks of supporters who are interested in achieving goals and working with people to do that. The way what you are describing happens is basically in-party negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There are no third parties in the United Stares with actual blocks of supporters who are interested in achieving goals and working with people to do that. The way what you are describing happens is basically in-party negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Could someone link me to this? I saw that the Trump campaign wasted a lot of money, but I didn't see anything about false doorknocking counts. Took me a minute to track this down. Part of a Nuzzi piece in NYMag in August, towards the end. There are some more direct claims that I'd have sworn were in here, but given my August I'm willing to believe I've extrapolated from the Potemkin vibes: quote:To close the gap, the campaign says it’s hosting dozens of events here — more than in any other state. But good luck finding them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This is more of a political-system thing, but: Have third parties ever tried to work out a deal with a particular politician, on the theory of "We will nominate you on our ticket, too, and in return we expect you to let us have veto power over your Secretary of the Interior/Attorney General/whatever picks" - presumably you would have to make the ask moderate, but this seems like a place where a third party could have meaningful power under our current system. eh not even in the case where you have electoral fusion (like in NY, where candidates are allowed to be on multiple party lines) do they even do horse trading like that usually it's more of a referendum on policies and the actual horse trading would be reserved for intercaucus stuff similar to parliamentary coalitions
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Wait a sec doesn't this mean Pennsylvania's electoral result won't be finalized for three days straight!? Certified, finalized election results generally don't happen for quite a while, even when there's no recount or controversy. For instance, in Washington, counties have three weeks to come up with their certified final numbers, and then the secretary of state signs off on everything a full month after election day. All the numbers you see around election night are preliminary counts with no legal meaning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
I'm sure stats get goosed for maximum PR value, but I don't think the Dems (or anyone of a more leftward persuasion) can afford to assume that all the stats are a lie. I imagine there are a lot of true believers in places like rural Pennsylvania or Michigan willing to walk around and give a big middle finger to liberals and lefties and anyone else they think is oppressing them. That's what I would do if I were them, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There are no third parties in the United Stares with actual blocks of supporters who are interested in achieving goals and working with people to do that. The way what you are describing happens is basically in-party negotiation. To expand upon this the 3rd parties in proportional systems more or less exist in the major parties, they just really aren't labelled as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:To expand upon this the 3rd parties in proportional systems more or less exist in the major parties, they just really aren't labelled as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right, I know the big difference here is that the coalitions get built inside of the parties, and that if you dissected things the Republicans would be the Fox News Party in coalition with the Gideon Brigade and the True Provisional Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. This goes against the received natural theology of the parties being both monoliths and basically the same thing, however, and mostly I had wondered if the experiment had been tried, since I know (for instance) there's a lot of thirdish parties in like, Minnesota and stuff. Democratic-Farmer-Labor etc. In New Zealand right now there's an attempt to squeeze the Green party out of Government by the current major party- the two are often seen as allies but there are deep, marked differences. Minor parties in functional proportional systems are still in battle with the major parties and each other, they're just more able to extract favours because they can call for an end to the government's coalition if they don't get what they want. Major parties still need to try to win, because a big victory means not being beholden to their smaller allies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right, I know the big difference here is that the coalitions get built inside of the parties, and that if you dissected things the Republicans would be the Fox News Party in coalition with the Gideon Brigade and the True Provisional Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. This goes against the received natural theology of the parties being both monoliths and basically the same thing, however, and mostly I had wondered if the experiment had been tried, since I know (for instance) there's a lot of thirdish parties in like, Minnesota and stuff. Democratic-Farmer-Labor etc. The only thing I can add to this at the moment is that is why Ranked Choice Voting is going to be so critical going forward (Vote Yes on Question 2 if you live in Massachusetts) in that it will give people who have third party views more power in the system and can realistically sway an election. But yah, not really because big third parties just get absorbed by a bigger party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
For third parties to broker votes in a presidential election, they'd have to have a notable segment of voters both locked down and willing to put their votes as the party directs. This is...pretty unlikely given the demographics that vote 3rd party are both independently-minded and opposed to voting for a major party to begin with. Realistically the only power a third party has is in a presidential run is threatening to run as a spoiler and trying to extract concessions on that basis. However this maneuver is so cynical it's going to repel voters if you actually do it, and actually taking your party off the ballot in response to a deal is blatant and discredits your party in the long run. Neither method has any means of enforcing the bargain. The major party could backtrack and you couldn't do anything about it. For the major party it would come with the benefit of discrediting the third party...they're literally incentivized to back out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1306695570220875777
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There are no third parties in the United Stares with actual blocks of supporters who are interested in achieving goals and working with people to do that. The way what you are describing happens is basically in-party negotiation. This is kind of how the Working Families Party and Conservative Party in NY state work. Other states have used such a system in the past, it’s called “electoral fusionism” in the first past the post system we have and it can be quite effective. The populists used it in the 1890s and even progressive whites and black voters used it successfully in North Carolina prior to Jim Crow being implemented there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion And no, the Green Party doesn’t bother with it because it’s actually sensible and effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
I know it won't be but I hope it's Crenshaw losing steam, he's not even my district but I hate him so much
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Rednik posted:This is kind of how the Working Families Party and Conservative Party in NY state work. Other states have used such a system in the past, it’s called “electoral fusionism” in the first past the post system we have and it can be quite effective. The populists used it in the 1890s and even progressive whites and black voters used it successfully in North Carolina prior to Jim Crow being implemented there. remember when the working families party tried to kneecap multiple progressive candidates because they were shamelessly trying to hold on to the token 'power' they had with the dems? Yea, stupid greens not following that model, it worked so well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 04:52
|
|