Motor City Sonics Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 How long until Nikki starts praising Trump? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben9753 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 5 hours ago, 1984Echoes said: Excellent post! No question G2 is the GOAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 25 Author Share Posted February 25 sort of tangentially related, but my long time gripe is that if taxpayer funds, facilities, and resources are used in these primary elections, I shouldn't be restrained in who I can vote for. At least I can pick one or the other party and vote, but I think it's trash that I can't vote in both. I think it's even more trash that some states administer these primary elections with taxpayer resources and people aren't allowed to vote. I love Democracy but the way we do it leaves a lot to be desired. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: But there is a another way to look at it, which is that primaries have a different nature for incumbencies. Your party chose a person as the best candidate, he/she ended up having wide enough appeal to win the office, why do you want to revisit that by running someone against them in a primary? That's basically strategic suicide for a party in the absence of some real issue with the incumbent. For a party to run against it's own incumbent in a primary is basically an intra-party impeachment-you're telling the world your party was too incompetent to get the choice right the 1st time and you, MR. Voter, didn't make a good choice in electing him. A lot of bad subtext there. Running anything other than tokens against incumbent will just never be SOP for a well functioning political party. With Biden you'd have to make a serious case that he was becoming demonstrably incompetent or something, and maybe some people believe that, but all I see is what is normal for a guy that is getting physically frailer but still has his wits about him. There is more risk at his age that he won't finish his term, but there's no guarantee either way. I'm old enough to remember that the youngest president we ever elected didn't finish his term either. In a perfect world it would have been nice if Biden decided early not to run again, but the problem is that there is no good time for a President to announce that without neutering his admin, so it even if there is some inclination (not that I think there was any with Biden) the shear momentum of trying to get things done works hard against that decision ever being implemented. I believe what you are saying is exactly what's happening politically. I don't like parties though and I don't like them making the decision for everyone. I just don't think discouraging choices is ever a good thing and I don't think what has happened in the past is a guarantee of future success. I do not think Biden is incompetent, but for some reason he is very unpopular. That tells me either people have soured on him or the only reason he won in 2020 is because Trump is so horrible. I hope it's the latter, but I fear it may be some combination of the two. I fear there are a lot of people who are disappointed in the direction of our country in general and they are going blame whomever is currently on the top. Some will forget how how horrible Trump was and just not vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 8 hours ago, 1984Echoes said: Excellent post! Even though I disgree with what they are doing, it was a great post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: But there is a another way to look at it, which is that primaries have a different nature for incumbencies. Your party chose a person as the best candidate, he/she ended up having wide enough appeal to win the office, why do you want to revisit that by running someone against them in a primary? That's basically strategic suicide for a party in the absence of some real issue with the incumbent. For a party to run against it's own incumbent in a primary is basically an intra-party impeachment-you're telling the world your party was too incompetent to get the choice right the 1st time and you, MR. Voter, didn't make a good choice in electing him. A lot of bad subtext there. Running anything other than tokens against incumbent will just never be SOP for a well functioning political party. With Biden you'd have to make a serious case that he was becoming demonstrably incompetent or something, and maybe some people believe that, but all I see is what is normal for a guy that is getting physically frailer but still has his wits about him. There is more risk at his age that he won't finish his term, but there's no guarantee either way. I'm old enough to remember that the youngest president we ever elected didn't finish his term either. In a perfect world it would have been nice if Biden decided early not to run again, but the problem is that there is no good time for a President to announce that without neutering his admin, so it even if there is some inclination (not that I think there was any with Biden) the shear momentum of trying to get things done works hard against that decision ever being implemented. And while people attribute the lack of a competitive primary to a shadowy cabal of elite Democrats in a smoke filled room, that's just not the reality. The reality is that the big names in the party (the Whitmers, Shapiros, Newsoms, Pritzkers, etc.) all have free will and, at any point in this process, could have thrown their hat into the ring and they have chosen not to. Some of the maybe even polled the possibility (Newsom seems likely to have) and found they would not win and would have damaged their standing in any future runs by doing so with actual Dem Party voters. Simply put, the incentives are not there... there's little chance for success and a high likelihood of destroying your career by taking something like that on. It's easy for us to sit on the sidelines and play fantasy baseball on this stuff, it's a lot harder when you are in their shoes and weighing that kind of risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 12 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I believe what you are saying is exactly what's happening politically. I don't like parties though and I don't like them making the decision for everyone. I just don't think discouraging choices is ever a good thing and I don't think what has happened in the past is a guarantee of future success. I think you underestimate the possibility that Biden would beat a lot of the alternatives decisively in an open primary. And *that* is what discouraged competition in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 5 minutes ago, mtutiger said: I think you underestimate the possibility that Biden would beat a lot of the alternatives decisively in an open primary. And *that* is what discouraged competition in this case. I know he would have won an open primary because they system would not have allowed a fair competition. However, if the model changed, I think it could work some time in the future after everyone was accustomed to it. It would take away the power from the parties though which is why it won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1776 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 4 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said: How long until Nikki starts praising Trump? I’m anxious to see how this plays out. The GOP desperately needs a start over at this point. I believe Haley is now a legitimate part of the next chapter, IF…. she doesn’t cave in the end. She won’t win the primaries but she can establish herself as a serious part of the future GOP. If she caves she will undermine everything she’s accomplished to date. I really would hate to see that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I know he would have won an open primary because they system would not have allowed a fair competition. However, if the model changed, I think it could work some time in the future after everyone was accustomed to it. It would take away the power from the parties though which is why it won't happen. How should the 'model' change? Again, I understand the general complaint about a lack of choices, but you cannot force Gretchen Whitmer to run for President... she would have to want to run for President. And clearly, she's not going to risk the wrath of *actual voters* in order to do so. You can't take self-interest out of the calculation. It's not totally apples to apples, but Nikki Haley is a great example of how that would go... as much as she is acting as a vessel for disaffected GOPers, I's and some D's thus far in the primary, I would guess that she is done in GOP politics after this. (I genuinely don't wish this fwiw) Edited February 25 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 40 minutes ago, mtutiger said: And while people attribute the lack of a competitive primary to a shadowy cabal of elite Democrats in a smoke filled room, that's just not the reality. The reality is that the big names in the party (the Whitmers, Shapiros, Newsoms, Pritzkers, etc.) all have free will and, at any point in this process, could have thrown their hat into the ring and they have chosen not to. Some of the maybe even polled the possibility (Newsom seems likely to have) and found they would not win and would have damaged their standing in any future runs by doing so with actual Dem Party voters. Simply put, the incentives are not there... there's little chance for success and a high likelihood of destroying your career by taking something like that on. It's easy for us to sit on the sidelines and play fantasy baseball on this stuff, it's a lot harder when you are in their shoes and weighing that kind of risk. There were several quality candidates in 2020. Biden beat them all. This DNC being an evil entity in their lair deciding who the nominee is didn't really start until the Bernie losers started crying about losing. It was Bernie Sanders who was claiming the election was rigged before Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 If Harris had come out and said she didn’t want to serve in 2025 I suspect a good chance Biden would have announced he’s not running and thrown it open to the likes of Newsom and Gretchen. Then you have kind of a scenario after a two term POTUS where the VP is not running, 2008 and 2016. I really think Harris on the ticket complicated things. That kind of situation is almost like running against an incumbent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 Johnson was the only incumbent to not run for a 2nd term when eligible. It didn't turn out well for his party. Maybe if Kennedy doesn't get assassinated it changes things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 47 minutes ago, 1776 said: I’m anxious to see how this plays out. The GOP desperately needs a start over at this point. I believe Haley is now a legitimate part of the next chapter, IF…. she doesn’t cave in the end. She won’t win the primaries but she can establish herself as a serious part of the future GOP. If she caves she will undermine everything she’s accomplished to date. I really would hate to see that happen. Yes, might be best to separate herself from the party of lunatics until that's over. But that's a runaway train and that might not be over for a long time. She'll look very very weak if she caves now.........after how she's gone after him so aggressively. If Biden should drop out at some point (and he could), who would be the front runners other than Kamala Harris? Andy Beshear? (he'd pull some moderates) Chris Murphy? (he will get tagged as East Coast Liberal) Big Gretch? (the left would love her but I still think this country won't elect a female for President unless both candidates are female. We're still so stuck in the past. Joe's age is going to be a major factor (even through Trump is only 3 years younger and certainly not as sharp. Gretchen would drive the Right insane. She's been pretty successful here (in my opinion). Far from perfect, but things seem to be going well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 10 minutes ago, oblong said: If Harris had come out and said she didn’t want to serve in 2025 I suspect a good chance Biden would have announced he’s not running and thrown it open to the likes of Newsom and Gretchen. Then you have kind of a scenario after a two term POTUS where the VP is not running, 2008 and 2016. I really think Harris on the ticket complicated things. That kind of situation is almost like running against an incumbent. Yeah, if Biden theoretically announced he wasnt running, he would immediately endorse her and it would be over. The fact that there have been so many articles written over fantasy scenarios that make The West Wing look realistic by comparison is a real indictment of the pundit industrial complex. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 43 minutes ago, mtutiger said: How should the 'model' change? Again, I understand the general complaint about a lack of choices, but you cannot force Gretchen Whitmer to run for President... she would have to want to run for President. And clearly, she's not going to risk the wrath of *actual voters* in order to do so. You can't take self-interest out of the calculation. It's not totally apples to apples, but Nikki Haley is a great example of how that would go... as much as she is acting as a vessel for disaffected GOPers, I's and some D's thus far in the primary, I would guess that she is done in GOP politics after this. (I genuinely don't wish this fwiw) One thing that might change things would be Congressional term limits. That way there would always be popular candidates still in their primes who wanted to go on to bigger things once their congressional days were over. I like term limits anyway, because I don't think political jobs should be forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 Term limits means they are even more beholden to special interests and you get less qualified candidates. Term limits has been one of the biggest cons sold to the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1776 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 12 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Johnson was the only incumbent to not run for a 2nd term when eligible. It didn't turn out well for his party. Maybe if Kennedy doesn't get assassinated it changes things. If you’re only speaking of Democrats. Republican President Calvin Coolidge could have run for another term but opted not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: One thing that might change things would be Congressional term limits. That way there would always be popular candidates still in their primes who wanted to go on to bigger things once their congressional days were over. I like term limits anyway, because I don't think political jobs should be forever. We have term limits in MI and I'd say in general it made things much worse - you don't want government expertise to turn over too fast. With short limits the permanent staff ends up running everything and the reps themselves end up like the staff's interns. I'm not against the concept per se but the implementation here was too reactionary - they made the limits too short (3 x 2 yrs or 2 x 4 yrs) - for the state HOR that's only 6 yrs. They should be no less than 10 yrs, I'd say maybe 15yrs. I want the 20-30 yrs guys to roll out, not the person who's been there just long enough to understand the issues and start being an effective legislator. We have changed it in MI in the last election so it's now 12 yrs combined in both Houses, which hopefully works better - a House rep could stay 6 terms max in the House, or a Senator 3 in the Senate or some combination. I'd have gone one term longer but this should still improve the State House. Edited February 25 by gehringer_2 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 34 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Johnson was the only incumbent to not run for a 2nd term when eligible. It didn't turn out well for his party. Maybe if Kennedy doesn't get assassinated it changes things. Oh, I think Kennedy wins the election of he wasn't killed. Bobby was young, energetic, and didn't have the war attached to him. Hubert Humphrey was this tired old politician who had always been hanging around but never truly defined himself. A candidate like that took all the wind out of the Democrats sails. When Bobby was killed after JFK and MLK, it's like a lot of people just gave up. Humphrey wasn't even running, he didn't win any of the primaries. Eugene McCarthy would have done much better. I think he still would have lost, but at least he had something behind him. They settled on Humphrey and settling doesn't work in politics. Not for big offices. The Democrats lost a decade because they went with the tired old part of the establishment. Society was shifting in their direction on social issues and Anti-War, but they turned away from that. It was before Reagan turned "liberal: into a dirty word. If Ford refused to pardon Nixon, would he have won? The Republican settled for Ford. Reagan would have beaten Carter in 1976. In 2004 the Democrats settled for Kerry. I think Howard Dean would have won the nomination if he didn't yell with excitement and all he had to do was sway one or two states and I think he could have. He had some energy building behind him. Think of where we are now and the way Trump acts every single day and think about how just yelling in victory cost a man his campaign. Howard was ahead of his time. Gary Hart could have won it all in 1988 if he wasn't such a putz in his personal life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 The 68 election was close and hard to analyze because of Wallace who won 5 southern states and in 3 of them Humphrey got more votes than Nixon. And you had Vietnam. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 45 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: We have term limits in MI and I'd say in general it made things much worse - you don't want government expertise to turn over too fast. With short limits the permanent staff ends up running everything and the reps themselves end up like the staff's interns. I'm not against the concept per se but the implementation here was too reactionary - they made the limits too short (3 x 2 yrs or 2 x 4 yrs) - for the state HOR that's only 6 yrs. They should be no less than 10 yrs, I'd say maybe 15yrs. I want the 20-30 yrs guys to roll out, not the person who's been there just long enough to understand the issues and start being an effective legislator. We have changed it in MI in the last election so it's now 12 yrs combined in both Houses, which hopefully works better - a House rep could stay 6 terms max in the House, or a Senator 3 in the Senate or some combination. I'd have gone one term longer but this should still improve the State House. People base term limit opposition on anecdotal evidence. Yes there are a handful who just stay in on name. But that’s up to the electorate to handle. The Michigan GOP is a good example of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, 1776 said: I’m anxious to see how this plays out. The GOP desperately needs a start over at this point. I believe Haley is now a legitimate part of the next chapter, IF…. she doesn’t cave in the end. She won’t win the primaries but she can establish herself as a serious part of the future GOP. If she caves she will undermine everything she’s accomplished to date. I really would hate to see that happen. I will say this - she's at the point now where it's really hard to see any upside to her endorsing. She will never be accepted in a MAGA controlled party, and she can probably enter the private sector with self-respect and dignity if she doesn't give in. I wish I had your optimism about the future or what she might be after, I genuinely mean that. We do need a healthy conservative party in this country - MAGA isn't that. But to the extent that might be her aim, it looks like a kamikaze mission. Edited February 25 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 It will be hard because so many of the GOP policies are “weird”. I use that word because I saw a tweet recently summing it up that way and I think it fits. Just take the Alabama IVF decision as an example. It’s extreme to normal people but it’s the logical extension of their position on abortion. How many are trying to walk it back after being exposed for endorsing similar laws in the past? I think a national law codifying Roe and hopefully closing the book on that issue is a necessary first step. But Roe has been the heart and soul of GOO politics since the late 70s when Falwell started the moral majority. It’s been proven time and again there’s no place for Romney style economi conservative policies with a blind eye toward the firebrand social issues. a path forward could emerge via a split of the Democratic Party with folks like Manchin butting heads with the progressives. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 18 hours ago, 1984Echoes said: Literally... The Pot calling the Kettle... lol literally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.