pfife Posted January 7 Posted January 7 2 hours ago, mtutiger said: We'll have to wait for Catalist to release their analysis of the 2024 electorate, but while it isn't the sexy answer, backlash against inflation seems to be the biggest driver based on what evidence exists today. Partisan Rs are currently making the same mistake that all winning sides do in these contests in assuming that their win means that American voters love every single position they take on every single issue. And that's just not the case. (Full disclosure, I made this mistake too in 2020 at times too, so I am as guilty as anyone) Its because the Democrat party didn't have a primary. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 1 hour ago, pfife said: Its because the Democrat party didn't have a primary. Right! Seriously, given the level or enthusiasm she generated among the party faithful, whether anyone could have defeated her had there been a primary seems doubtful. You have the fact of that enthusiasm on one side and the fact that her 2020 campaign didn't lift off very well standing in opposition to one another. Quote
oblong Posted January 7 Posted January 7 I’m trying to think of a scenario where a sitting VP ran and didn’t win the nomination. Closest thing I can come up with was Ford and Dole when Rockefeller was VP but I think that was very unique. Probably the best thing they could have hoped for was Biden dropping in 2023 and you have a primary but she wins. Maybe a token primary to act as sparring partners would for a boxer. what we may discover is a lot of party faithful not fully on board behind the scenes. those close to Biden screwed the pooch. Unless his decline was rapid they should have known this long ago. Quote
Tigerbomb13 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 29 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Is this real? It’s just grift upon grift upon grift. It’s both funny and sad Quote
Tiger337 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 8 hours ago, Dan Gilmore said: I think he’s just horsing around. allfamilypharmacy seems to be a real pharmacy. Who knows anymore? Quote
chasfh Posted January 7 Author Posted January 7 14 hours ago, CMRivdogs said: I just don't see local militias taking up the role similar to local volunteer fire departments or rescue squads. If states and localities would draw up guidelines and regulations so that such groups could operate under strict guidelines, I might agree. But the folks drawn to militias tend to dislike government mandates of any form unless they agree with the mandates. From what I've seen, there is no compromise with these guys. They're basically no difference between them and the street gangs in many local cities. That’s because guys join local militias so they can shoot people they don’t like. Joining volunteer fire departments or rescue squad would force them to save people they don’t like, and that’s just woke horse****. Quote
oblong Posted January 7 Posted January 7 8 minutes ago, chasfh said: That’s because guys join local militias so they can shoot people they don’t like. Joining volunteer fire departments or rescue squad would force them to save people they don’t like, and that’s just woke horse****. they can shoot the random black jogger who they feel isn't where they are 'supposed to be'. Then claim they were just doing their "duty" and some hayseed sheriff straight out of a movie will back them up. Then they all head to their Klan meeting that night. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Except the Klan has been branded as the New American Knights or something like that https://abcnews.go.com/US/white-supremacists-effort-rebrand-kkk-inclusive-group-prompts/story?id=26832019 Quote
mtutiger Posted January 7 Posted January 7 12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: Seriously, given the level or enthusiasm she generated among the party faithful, whether anyone could have defeated her had there been a primary seems doubtful. Or whether anyone would have challenged her anyway.... People complain about the lack of a competitive primary, but given when Biden ended up dropping out, structurally, does anybody really think Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, etc. had big incentive to throw their hat into the ring versus waiting until 2028? Reportedly the only serious candidate who even remotely considered it after Biden dropped out was JB Pritzker, and the fact that he fell into line within about a day or two was probably a sign of how successful a challenge would have been. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Given the timing of Biden's decision to drop out, a Democtatic Party primary would have probably been a cluster ****. An alternative could have been a meeting of the Party's Central Committee to choose a nominee. That decision would have created similar criticism. The best possible solution was gone when Biden decided to run for re-election. Of course, this is all hindsight. Quote
Tigeraholic1 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Maybe just get rid of primaries then. Harris was one of the first to drop out in the last cycle. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Just now, Tigeraholic1 said: Maybe just get rid of primaries then. Harris was one of the first to drop out in the last cycle. But then your guy Trump wouldn't have even made it down the escalator in 2015. I old enough to remember when the parties nominees were mostly chosen by back room deals. See 1968, Hubert Humphrey Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 2 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Maybe just get rid of primaries then. Harris was one of the first to drop out in the last cycle. See above (my last post). It currently seems that Republican candidates for most state and federal offices are now chosen by one guy. The primaries are just for show Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Quote At the VERY LEAST, since he accomplished nothing else to hold the leaders of this accountable, Merrick Garland needs to release the damn report and stop being afraid of his own shadow. Weak people all over this Admin is part of what got us here. https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lf5r4e6lks2e 1 1 Quote
Tiger337 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 43 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Maybe just get rid of primaries then. Harris was one of the first to drop out in the last cycle. The constution says nothing about primaries...I do like primaries better than having the party select a candidate, but having a bunch of candidates also opens the door for a grifter or otherwise nefarious individual to be nominated based on a plurality. Quote
Tigeraholic1 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 21 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: The constution says nothing about primaries...I do like primaries better than having the party select a candidate, but having a bunch of candidates also opens the door for a grifter or otherwise nefarious individual to be nominated based on a plurality. Maybe only have a Primary for the side that is not currently in power? Current president appoints their replacement? I could run with that. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 8 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Maybe only have a Primary for the side that is not currently in power? Current president appoints their replacement? I could run with that. And basically that's what happened this past election. And you beefed about it a lot. Political Parties were not exactly in the Founders' plans. Washington hated them. They basically came about after a beef between Jefferson and Hamilton while they were in Washington's Cabinet. Then later expanded to the election of Adams and his squabbles with Jefferson (and others). The President was originally ment to be chosen by a handful of men chosen as representatives from the states. Madison and company didn't trust handing the highest office to the rabble. Quote
Tigeraholic1 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 12 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: And basically that's what happened this past election. And you beefed about it a lot. Political Parties were not exactly in the Founders' plans. Washington hated them. They basically came about after a beef between Jefferson and Hamilton while they were in Washington's Cabinet. Then later expanded to the election of Adams and his squabbles with Jefferson (and others). The President was originally ment to be chosen by a handful of men chosen as representatives from the states. Madison and company didn't trust handing the highest office to the rabble. Umm there was an actual primary this year. Not the same, people voted and everything. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 7 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Umm there was an actual primary this year. Not the same, people voted and everything. Um...you said maybe have a primary for the party out of office. I gave you a history lesson. There will be no test, I'm giving you a D- anyway for comprehension Quote
oblong Posted January 7 Posted January 7 There's no law that says a political party has to have a primary. It's up to the party to decide how to pick their nominees. The only time the law comes into play is with regard to deadlines for printing ballots and all of that. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 1 minute ago, oblong said: There's no law that says a political party has to have a primary. It's up to the party to decide how to pick their nominees. The only time the law comes into play is with regard to deadlines for printing ballots and all of that. Algorithms won't let me like. But this is the correct answer Quote
CMRivdogs Posted January 7 Posted January 7 I'd say leak it to a major outlet, but they've already capitulated Quote
Tigeraholic1 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 55 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: Um...you said maybe have a primary for the party out of office. I gave you a history lesson. There will be no test, I'm giving you a D- anyway for comprehension My point was we held a primary this year. Every state voted and she was not the nominated candidate. History lesson aside. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.