South Carolina primary thread

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

 

They forgot Bloomberg, so I'll write him in:

 

Bloomberg: "Look, I have more money than any of those fools above, so I'll buy my way in, then turn off Medicare and Social Security!"

Edited February 29, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[90DayFinancier 910]

22 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I have never understood this.  Why do I have to have a party affiliation?  Why can I only vote for that party?  What if I am a democrat but want to vote for Trump?  Or Sanders?

 

Some states are now putting the party affiliation check boxes on the outside of voting envelopes.  Why?  To make it easier to de ide which ones to toss without opening, thereby speeding up the counting process?

I believe that the parties have the right to set their own membership and affiliation rules, within rules set by federal and state laws of course. If Republicans and Democrats wanted to run over the nomination rules of the libertarian party, people who normally affiliate as libertarians should have the right to say no to that influence.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I believe that the parties have the right to set their own membership and affiliation rules, within rules set by federal and state laws of course. If Republicans and Democrats wanted to run over the nomination rules of the libertarian party, people who normally affiliate as libertarians should have the right to say no to that influence.

That makes no sense.  People should be able to vote for the best candidate, period.  But I guess it does explain why Hillary won the popular vote, if dems weren't allowed to cross over.

[90DayFinancier 910]

9 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

That makes no sense.  People should be able to vote for the best candidate, period.  But I guess it does explain why Hillary won the popular vote, if dems weren't allowed to cross over.

I think you are conflating the nomination process and the general election.

 

The parties set their own rules.  The Republicans in SC decided that it was in their best interest to not muddy the waters by having a competitive primary, they will simply coronate Trump as the winner of their delegation. Their party, their process, sucks for Bill Weld. You cannot say, fairly , that the Republicans can set their rules but the Democrats have to welcome everbody.

 

You are free to start your own party.

.

Edited February 29, 2020 by 90DayFinancier

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

30 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I think you are conflating the nomination process and the general election.

 

The parties set their own rules.  The Republicans in SC decided that it was in their best interest to not muddy the waters by having a competitive primary, they will simply coronate Trump as the winner of their delegation. Their party, their process, sucks for Bill Weld. You cannot say, fairly , that the Republicans can set their rules but the Democrats have to welcome everbody.

 

You are free to start your own party.

.

I don't want to start my own party.  I want to cast my vote (yes, even in the primaries) for whomever I feel is best.  Saying a registered republican can't nominate Sanders nor Bootleg seems silly to me.

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I don't want to start my own party.  I want to cast my vote (yes, even in the primaries) for whomever I feel is best.  Saying a registered republican can't nominate Sanders nor Bootleg seems silly to me.

Can Democrats vote for Bill Weld in sc?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Can Democrats vote for Bill Weld in sc?

I have no idea.  I don't vote in SC.  But they SHOULD be able to, IMO.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 minute ago, Voice of Reason said:

I have no idea.  I don't vote in SC.  But they SHOULD be able to, IMO.

Really, you had no idea that the Republican primaries were cancelled, i find that difficult to believe.

 

Even so, my statement "The parties set their own rules.  The Republicans in SC decided that it was in their best interest to not muddy the waters by having a competitive primary, they will simply coronate Trump as the winner of their delegation. Their party, their process, sucks for Bill Weld. "

[Crazy Cat 41,844]

14 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Really, you had no idea that the Republican primaries were cancelled, i find that difficult to believe.

 

Even so, my statement "The parties set their own rules.  The Republicans in SC decided that it was in their best interest to not muddy the waters by having a competitive primary, they will simply coronate Trump as the winner of their delegation. Their party, their process, sucks for Bill Weld. "

The South Carolina Democratic Party didn’t hold presidential primaries in 1996 or in 2012, when Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were their incumbents.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Really, you had no idea that the Republican primaries were cancelled, i find that difficult to believe.

 

Even so, my statement "The parties set their own rules.  The Republicans in SC decided that it was in their best interest to not muddy the waters by having a competitive primary, they will simply coronate Trump as the winner of their delegation. Their party, their process, sucks for Bill Weld. "

I think you're missing my point.   Yes, I knew the repub primaries were cancelled.  Long ago.

 

My point is cross-party voting.  You say it's immoral to claim to be a democrat to be able to vote for a democrat in the primaries.  I disagree.  I think people should not be restricted to voting within their own party.  What about all the undeclared folks?  Are they precluded from voting in ANY primary?

 

I guess I just never paid attention before, can't remember anyone on the left I'd vote for except Tulsi.  Just seems wack to me.  Seems like cross-party voting would be as important as dead people voting.

[yuna628 9,676]

19 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I don't want to start my own party.  I want to cast my vote (yes, even in the primaries) for whomever I feel is best.  Saying a registered republican can't nominate Sanders nor Bootleg seems silly to me.

This is largely a point that always annoyed my parents with voting. Independent and Libertarian voters, or any other voter of a different party other than the two mains, cannot vote in primaries at all. In general you must vote for the party you belong to, no playing or switching sides. I suppose they will say it will keep people from cheating by tactical voting from the opposing party's members in a process that is supposed to be about one party's voters electing the person only they want. For instance let's say you had a huge swath of voters from one party, decide to largely 'throw' a primary not because they actually liked the person's policies and wanted them to be nominated, or they thought they were lesser of some other evil, but that they just wanted to wreck some trouble.. they didn't actually care about the seriousness of voting at all. This is the main drawback as seen from 'open primaries', there's a vulnerability of manipulation, but on the face of it, yes it is largely unfair. You can see the states with open primaries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States

 

7 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I think you're missing my point.   Yes, I knew the repub primaries were cancelled.  Long ago.

 

My point is cross-party voting.  You say it's immoral to claim to be a democrat to be able to vote for a democrat in the primaries.  I disagree.  I think people should not be restricted to voting within their own party.  What about all the undeclared folks?  Are they precluded from voting in ANY primary?

 

I guess I just never paid attention before, can't remember anyone on the left I'd vote for except Tulsi.  Just seems wack to me.  Seems like cross-party voting would be as important as dead people voting.

Yes. They usually are, unless they live in a state with an open primary.

 

What I disagree with more is 'canceling' primaries such as like the GOP did. I like Weld a lot. It's almost like they scared of a challenge. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

 

What I disagree with more is 'canceling' primaries such as like the GOP did. I like Weld a lot. It's almost like they scared of a challenge. 

I guess from a "party" standpoint, it doesn't make sense to pit a Weld against a Trump, politically or financially.  But as a voter, I agree that more choices would be nice.  I know nothing of Weld, but as it stands, will vote for Trump due to the poor choices I see on the less-green side of the "fence".  Sad.

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

 

What I disagree with more is 'canceling' primaries such as like the GOP did. I like Weld a lot. It's almost like they scared of a challenge. 

I guess from a "party" standpoint, it doesn't make sense to pit a Weld against a Trump, politically or financially.  But as a voter, I agree that more choices would be nice.  I know nothing of Weld, but as it stands, will vote for Trump due to the poor choices I see on the less-green side of the "fence".  Sad.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

5 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Ok, that'll do.  Back to only serious posts...

That train left the station about 60 alex posts ago

[90DayFinancier 910]

7 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

I think you're missing my point.   Yes, I knew the repub primaries were cancelled.  Long ago.

 

My point is cross-party voting.  You say it's immoral to claim to be a democrat to be able to vote for a democrat in the primaries.  I disagree.  I think people should not be restricted to voting within their own party.  What about all the undeclared folks?  Are they precluded from voting in ANY primary?

 

I guess I just never paid attention before, can't remember anyone on the left I'd vote for except Tulsi.  Just seems wack to me.  Seems like cross-party voting would be as important as dead people voting.

"You say it's immoral to claim to be a democrat to be able to vote for a democrat in the primaries."

I never said this, i don't know what your point is.

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 hours ago, missileman said:

The South Carolina Democratic Party didn’t hold presidential primaries in 1996 or in 2012, when Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were their incumbents.

I agree these are facts.

Billionaire Tom Steyer quits Democratic primary race

The announcement came after an underwhelming finish in the South Carolina primary and spending nearly $160M on his campaign.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1146286