2016 Democratic Thread

[Y2Jimmy0]

The Democrats are picking a candidate. Their group is selecting a candidate. There are mechanisms in place for people who do not wish to join the Dem organization to select and run for president. Why should people who are not Democrats have any say in which candidate that group nominates?

 

"I'm not a Democrat but dammit I want a voice in who they nominate!" Does that even sound right?

 

 

Because having to link yourself to one side is f***ing lunacy. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I'm voting for Gary Johnson but why shouldn't someone be able to vote for whoever they want in a primary? It doesn't make any sense.

[StrangeSox]

Because it's a political party choosing their own nominee. I'm in favor of open primaries but I get the logic of them being a little restrictive. New York's rules are still ridiculous though.

[StrangeSox]

Hamilton to stay on $10; Tubman replacing Jackson

 

Wonder how much that Hamilton play influenced this change? Originally, Hamilton was supposed to be gone and Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson was to remain on the $20.

[cabiness42]

Hamilton to stay on $10; Tubman replacing Jackson

 

Wonder how much that Hamilton play influenced this change? Originally, Hamilton was supposed to be gone and Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson was to remain on the $20.

 

The play had nothing to do with it. $20s are much more common than $10s and there would have been complaints of racism and sexism if they put her on the $10.

[StrangeSox]

The pushback on the original plan, which was to replace Hamilton, came from Hamilton supporters, not "complaints of racism and sexism."

[Y2Jimmy0]

It's funny that Harriet Tubman who was born a slave is now on the $20 instead of Andrew Jackson who was a slave owner. I've already seen criticism on twitter because Tubman wasn't a president. I've gone 30 years of my life not realizing that Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were once presidents. Crazy.

[bmags]

The play had nothing to do with it. $20s are much more common than $10s and there would have been complaints of racism and sexism if they put her on the $10.

 

Great insights.

 

[shysocks]

It's funny that Harriet Tubman who was born a slave is now on the $20 instead of Andrew Jackson who was a slave owner. I've already seen criticism on twitter because Tubman wasn't a president. I've gone 30 years of my life not realizing that Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton were once presidents. Crazy.

[bmags]

Hamilton to stay on $10; Tubman replacing Jackson

 

Wonder how much that Hamilton play influenced this change? Originally, Hamilton was supposed to be gone and Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson was to remain on the $20.

 

I am certain it was the play, and thank goodness. I actually read that biography recently (I had heard it was fairly run-of-the-mill biography but I thought the writer did a very good job, albeit had to make a lot of paragraphs like "one could imagine Hamilton meeting x person here for the first time" since Hamilton had so little documentatio of his life before the army. I loved it. Loved the Aaron Burr being a whiney baby stories too.

[StrangeSox]

Great insights.

imaginary PC police!

[StrangeSox]

I am certain it was the play, and thank goodness. I actually read that biography recently (I had heard it was fairly run-of-the-mill biography but I thought the writer did a very good job, albeit had to make a lot of paragraphs like "one could imagine Hamilton meeting x person here for the first time" since Hamilton had so little documentatio of his life before the army. I loved it. Loved the Aaron Burr being a whiney baby stories too.

 

I will always think of that got milk commercial with the guy with a mouth full of peanut butter whenever I read "Aaron Burr"

[bmags]

Because having to link yourself to one side is f***ing lunacy. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I'm voting for Gary Johnson but why shouldn't someone be able to vote for whoever they want in a primary? It doesn't make any sense.

 

I just don't understand this. It's the primary to decide who will be the party's nominee for the actual election. If this is an issue, shouldn't it also be a problem that you can only choose one ballot? Why shouldn't anyone voting for primary be allowed to vote for the democrat and republican candidate?

 

The primary's, aside from creating candidates for the GE, are choosing someone to essentially lead that party. I get not making it hard for people to vote, but I don't get the idea that someone who has said they are specifically not a democrat or republican deserves the right to be a part of that process.

[southsider2k5]

Hamilton to stay on $10; Tubman replacing Jackson

 

Wonder how much that Hamilton play influenced this change? Originally, Hamilton was supposed to be gone and Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson was to remain on the $20.

 

Jackson was also anti-national bank, so it is appropriate that it be him taken off of our currency.

[StrangeSox]

Suffragettes will also appear on the back of the $10.

 

The Onion with a solid line:

 

“I’ll be honest: When Lin-Manuel Miranda told me he had a plan to get Harriet Tubman onto the $20 bill, I thought he was nuts.”

[Y2Jimmy0]

I just don't understand this. It's the primary to decide who will be the party's nominee for the actual election. If this is an issue, shouldn't it also be a problem that you can only choose one ballot? Why shouldn't anyone voting for primary be allowed to vote for the democrat and republican candidate?

 

The primary's, aside from creating candidates for the GE, are choosing someone to essentially lead that party. I get not making it hard for people to vote, but I don't get the idea that someone who has said they are specifically not a democrat or republican deserves the right to be a part of that process.

 

 

I'm not interested in voting for anyone on either side this year but it doesn't mean that I wouldn't be in the future.

[bmags]

I'm not interested in voting for anyone on either side this year but it doesn't mean that I wouldn't be in the future.

 

If your complaint is with the 6 month requirement in NY that is excessive. But I think a 2-4 week cutoff is reasonable. That still allows you to register.

[Reddy]

I have to imagine that is counting every registered independent in the state of New York, many of whom had no interest in voting in the primary at all, but it deceptively implies that they wanted to vote but were blocked.

 

NY's 6 month registration deadline is ridiculous, but these types of complaints aren't really very helpful.

 

guys. If you weren't previous registered, you had until March 25 to register to vote in NY. 6 months is only for SWITCHING parties.

[lasttriptotulsa]

guys. If you weren't previous registered, you had until March 25 to register to vote in NY. 6 months is only for SWITCHING parties.

 

That doesn't make it any better. You are still forcing an independent voter to decide 6 months before the election. At that point in October there had only been a couple debates and there were still 15 or so Republican candidates and a half dozen Democratic candidates running.

[Reddy]

That doesn't make it any better. You are still forcing an independent voter to decide 6 months before the election. At that point in October there had only been a couple debates and there were still 15 or so Republican candidates and a half dozen Democratic candidates running.

Independents shouldn't have any right to vote for a party's nominee. I echo all the previous sentiments posted by Tex/SS2K etc

 

[southsider2k5]

Independents shouldn't have any right to vote for a party's nominee. I echo all the previous sentiments posted by Tex/SS2K etc

 

Each party gets to make its own rules, but honestly it is pretty stupid to have one state where you can declare the day of the election, and another where you have to give six months of advanced notice. If this were being done in Republican state, people would be screaming about vote suppression.

[Texsox]

Because having to link yourself to one side is f***ing lunacy. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I'm voting for Gary Johnson but why shouldn't someone be able to vote for whoever they want in a primary? It doesn't make any sense.

 

 

Your party doesn't even have any primaries. They pick a candidate at their convention. Why can't I have a vote in the Libertarian nominee? That's lunacy.

 

Of the dozen or so political parties which ran a candidate for President in the last election, two held primaries the rest did not.

[StrangeSox]

Your party doesn't even have any primaries. They pick a candidate at their convention. Why can't I have a vote in the Libertarian nominee? That's lunacy.

 

Of the dozen or so political parties which ran a candidate for President in the last election, two held primaries the rest did not.

I think the important counterpoint to this is that for a variety of reasons we're really stuck with a two-party system at least at the Presidential level, and if you want to have a say in who the nominees of the only people with a shot at the office will be, you have to choose D or R.

[Texsox]

That doesn't make it any better. You are still forcing an independent voter to decide 6 months before the election. At that point in October there had only been a couple debates and there were still 15 or so Republican candidates and a half dozen Democratic candidates running.

 

At stake here is not any elected office. It is an organization selecting their nominee. Primaries are not even required. As I mentioned above of the 14 parties that were on the 2012 ballot, two held primaries to help in making the decision of who would be their nominee twelve did not. People act like they were voting for President. The primaries are basically a traveling commercial to build support and publicity for their party.

 

There aren't many organizations that make it easy for people from outside the organization to influence major decisions by that organization. You're a shareholder of Coke? Sure, come in and vote at the Pepsi shareholder's meeting.

[Texsox]

I think the important counterpoint to this is that for a variety of reasons we're really stuck with a two-party system at least at the Presidential level, and if you want to have a say in who the nominees of the only people with a shot at the office will be, you have to choose D or R.

 

Then you stop being an independent. If you want to be involved at the primary level, you just stepped beyond independent and into the inner workings of a political party.

[Texsox]

Each party gets to make its own rules, but honestly it is pretty stupid to have one state where you can declare the day of the election, and another where you have to give six months of advanced notice. If this were being done in Republican state, people would be screaming about vote suppression.

 

Or states that caucus and do not have a ballot.