Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think we are getting off-topic....

Back to it, I suppose we are going to see a Supreme Court ruling at some point on just how much control states have over who can appear on the ballot as a candidate and who cannot. I do wonder if, if blue states were to deny Trump appearance on the ballot, and SCOTUS ruled against the states, but the ruling came right before Election Day (not enough time to get Trump re-balloted?), what would happen?
I would hope that SCOTUS would be savvy enough to leave enough time for their ruling to be implemented (as they are with the census citizenship question), or at least provide guidance on how the situation should be dealt with. Perhaps just not counting those states' electoral college votes or something.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-05-2019 at 12:54 PM.
  #52  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:52 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,757
I fail to see how this easily-satisfied condition is somehow more onerous than "Voter ID" laws, redistricting to the extent of eliminating the other party, and closing eliminating polling places only for your opponents, then saying crap like "Don't like him? Vote him out" after eliminating that possibility and enforcing it with a stolen judiciary.

But sure, let's pretend this is worse.
  #53  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:27 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,126
I can see the individual parties making that rule though. No legal problems there. Maybe the Democrats can make a unilateral first move and impose it on themselves.
  #54  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:31 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
See, I disagree. The Democrats just won back control of the House. They made progress in state races. Democracy is ailing and the Republicans are acting in systematic and coordinated fashion to undermine it, but nevertheless, Democracy persists. That's where the focus should be, on campaigning about bread-and-butter issues and winning over the mainstream as Pelosi has said. The Democrats have become obsessed like Captain Ahab by insisting that impeachment bring him down. Their focusing way too much on the results of the last election when they should be doing what worked in 2018, which is focusing on the here and now.
I agree. The big issue Democrats should be pushing is voting rights. It's a fundamental issue that people can relate to.
  #55  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:41 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
How about if some red states issued a requirement that the candidate release his long-form birth certificate before being allowed on the ballot.?
People would have gone ballistic.
I don't know if you're being ironic here. But there were, in fact, proposals made by some conservatives to make this a requirement for running for President.

It didn't go far because some of the more intelligent conservatives understood that all their stories about Obama's birth were lies and that all they would achieve by such a law would be to give Obama a forum to prove they were lying.
  #56  
Old 05-05-2019, 02:30 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
For Trump. It would hurt down ballot Republicans though. I very liberal and I think that it's a chickenshit move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This seems so obviously short-sighted, I'm surprised there's not more / stronger opposition to it from Dems.
I agree. This is not a good look, tinkers with democracy and could backfire in spectacular ways. But I'm not surprised.

ETA: And the idea that Trump could win anyway is horrifying.

Last edited by Heffalump and Roo; 05-05-2019 at 02:31 PM.
  #57  
Old 05-05-2019, 02:46 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
How about if some red states issued a requirement that the candidate release his long-form birth certificate before being allowed on the ballot.?
People would have gone ballistic.
Or demand DNA tests showing 50% heredity in a certain ethnic group for anybody claiming to represent that ethnic group?
(yes, they are sill ideas...but you get the idea)

I think it would actually be a good idea--in the future-- to require that tax returns be made public for all holders of public office . That would be good for the public as a whole, and not biased politically for or against any party.

But doing it this year, for this specific candidate, is obviously motivated by a blatant political bias. And it invites retaliatory actions, which will eventually cheapen the electoral process, and not be good for the public.


None of these were presidential norms and were thus unreasonable requests. Releasing taxes is a presidential norm, and one Trump agree to do during the campaign.
  #58  
Old 05-05-2019, 03:01 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,595
The Democrats, like any other American, have the primary responsibility of defending the US from threats to democracy, of which Trump is a big one due to his corruption and incompetence. Focusing on anything else would accomplish much less.

Where I disagree is in the idea that doing this would in any way help fight off Trump. It's not that it has political downsides that I see as the problem so much as it having no actual upsides.

Now, on the other hand, promoting this but not getting it might be useful to rally the base, and overcome any problems with the other side being incensed it was ever an option. And if that can be later used to next time make a bigger push towards requiring one, then I'm okay with it.

As for the legal thing: I don't see how having requirements to appear on the ballot would be a legal issue. I can't see the argument that would be used to declare it unconstitutional. If the court won't block gerrymandering, which is much more clearly political, why would they get involved here?

If the Court did find it unconstitutional, I would definitely assume political bias. You'd have two opposing decisions that both help one side.
  #59  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:31 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
The Democrats, like any other American, have the primary responsibility of defending the US from threats to democracy, of which Trump is a big one due to his corruption and incompetence. Focusing on anything else would accomplish much less.

Where I disagree is in the idea that doing this would in any way help fight off Trump. It's not that it has political downsides that I see as the problem so much as it having no actual upsides.

Now, on the other hand, promoting this but not getting it might be useful to rally the base, and overcome any problems with the other side being incensed it was ever an option. And if that can be later used to next time make a bigger push towards requiring one, then I'm okay with it.

As for the legal thing: I don't see how having requirements to appear on the ballot would be a legal issue. I can't see the argument that would be used to declare it unconstitutional. If the court won't block gerrymandering, which is much more clearly political, why would they get involved here?

If the Court did find it unconstitutional, I would definitely assume political bias. You'd have two opposing decisions that both help one side.

There are a number of swing states, I believe, in which the Republicans hold both the governorship and legislature. In theory, they could ban a Democrat from the ballot as a retaliatory measure (doesn't violate race/religion/gender) and that would have a much more serious effect on the election than a solid-blue state such as Massachusetts or Hawaii banning Trump.
  #60  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:32 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Would you have said the same thing about Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster for most presidential nominees? It was a move that, I think, most Democrats would agree has bitten them in the ass. This one seems similarly foolish and short-sighted.
Technically correct, but McConnell's strategy of obstructionism is what led to Harry Reid nuking the filibuster in the first place. Just like McConnell's decision to prevent Merrick Garland from having a hearing may well lead to court packing. But that's what McConnell and the Republicans have wanted: the opposite of a healthy democracy and instead a democracy that is determined by which side can use its majority to political neuter the other.
  #61  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:35 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are a number of swing states, I believe, in which the Republicans hold both the governorship and legislature. In theory, they could ban a Democrat from the ballot as a retaliatory measure (doesn't violate race/religion/gender) and that would have a much more serious effect on the election than a solid-blue state such as Massachusetts or Hawaii banning Trump.
This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. Some people are probably going to say that they'll eventually do that anyway, but I think there would be outrage if they tried. But if Democrats are the ones who start that ball rolling first, they run the risk of playing right into Trump's narrative that they're just nothing but a bunch of sore losers who are trying to rig the election. Yes, Trump will say these sorts of things, but Democrats shouldn't be doing things that might validate him. There are a lot of independents who would balk at such an idea, and like it or not, we need to persuade them that we're a better choice for governing the country. This seems like a good way to dissuade them.
  #62  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:38 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree. The big issue Democrats should be pushing is voting rights. It's a fundamental issue that people can relate to.
Absolutely.

Voting rights, fighting voter suppression -- fight for ways to get out more and more voters and fight to be more persuasive to all of the voters who plan to show up. But even proposing and talking in a state legislative committee about the idea of removing the incumbent presidential candidate from a poll is fucking nuts.
  #63  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
It could even hurt down ticket Dems in those states as it would be an election without a contest at the top, more like a midterm, which despite 2018 usually plays to D disadvantage.

Dumb thing to do as well as wrong.
  #64  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:44 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It could even hurt down ticket Dems in those states as it would be an election without a contest at the top, more like a midterm, which despite 2018 usually plays to D disadvantage.

Dumb thing to do as well as wrong.
You know what? That's a brilliant post, DSeid - I hadn't even thought of that, but you're right. It would be like a mid-term if you take away the main event.
  #65  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:45 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It could even hurt down ticket Dems in those states as it would be an election without a contest at the top
Probably not. I'm sure any independent or 3rd party candidate would leap at the chance to be on the ballot without a Republican. The future ballot access ability (getting 5% or so of the vote leading to guaranteed later access without signature gathering) alone would make it too good to pass up.

Granted, Democratic Candidate may not be seriously threatened by 3rd Party Candidate but it's not as though they were seriously threatened by Republican Candidate either in California, New York, Illinois, etc and people still come out to vote for president.
  #66  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:00 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. Some people are probably going to say that they'll eventually do that anyway, but I think there would be outrage if they tried.
In many states they've done it already. There wasn't. Or there was, and the GOP ignored it.
  #67  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
I fail to see how this easily-satisfied condition is somehow more onerous than "Voter ID" laws, redistricting to the extent of eliminating the other party, and closing eliminating polling places only for your opponents, then saying crap like "Don't like him? Vote him out" after eliminating that possibility and enforcing it with a stolen judiciary.

But sure, let's pretend this is worse.
So a law which says that you have to have a freely provided ID is worse that telling millions of people who have registered to vote that they may not vote for their preferred candidate?

I don't want to hijack the thread with a voter ID debate, but your side complains about disenfranchisement, but at the same time would tell people that they cannot vote to re-elect the President of the United States.

How is it better to tell people that they can vote, but only for the state approved candidate? That smacks of the "elections" that they hold in Cuba.
  #68  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:24 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So a law which says that you have to have a freely provided ID is worse that telling millions of people who have registered to vote that they may not vote for their preferred candidate?
Of course they can. All their candidate has to do is get on the ballot.

Millions of people might want to vote for Taylor Swift but if Ms Swift doesn't put herself on the ballot, that's on no one but her. It ain't the states' fault.
  #69  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:29 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Of course they can. All their candidate has to do is get on the ballot.

Millions of people might want to vote for Taylor Swift but if Ms Swift doesn't put herself on the ballot, that's on no one but her. It ain't the states' fault.
If Taylor Swift does not want to run, then she is not a "candidate."
  #70  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:36 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If Taylor Swift does not want to run, then she is not a "candidate."
If you don't file your tax returns with the state in question, you're not a "candidate" there either.

Being a candidate is more than a vague yearning to run, it's also paperwork and regulations on the federal and state level. Either do the work or stay home.

Last edited by Jophiel; 05-05-2019 at 05:39 PM.
  #71  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:21 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 554
I don't believe a state can add requirements beyond what is laid out in the Constitution; Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
  #72  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:24 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So a law which says that you have to have a freely provided ID is worse that telling millions of people who have registered to vote that they may not vote for their preferred candidate?

I don't want to hijack the thread with a voter ID debate, but your side complains about disenfranchisement, but at the same time would tell people that they cannot vote to re-elect the President of the United States.
That is, of course, not even REMOTELY what people in this discussion are saying. If fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite.
  #73  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:32 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I don't believe a state can add requirements beyond what is laid out in the Constitution; Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
They already do. You need to have enough signed petitions to get on the ballot, for example (this is waived for major parties since it's assumed that they'll get enough but political parties aren't referenced in the constitution)
  #74  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:41 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
They already do. You need to have enough signed petitions to get on the ballot, for example (this is waived for major parties since it's assumed that they'll get enough but political parties aren't referenced in the constitution)
If you read the Thornton case cited on the prior page of this thread, you will see that the Supreme Court makes a distinction between general administrative ballot access laws to ensure an orderly election and to make sure that there are not 5,000 candidates for an office listed (4,993 of them are just for novelty reasons) and enacting meaningful substantive requirements which tend to invoke the state power to add qualifications for the office being sought.
  #75  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:48 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
That is, of course, not even REMOTELY what people in this discussion are saying. If fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite.
It is exactly what people are saying. They are saying that unless the candidate they wish to vote for, who would otherwise be entitled to ballot access, cannot be voted in favor of because of an additional state policy requirement that it alone believes is an important quality to have in a candidate: in this case the openness of releasing one's private tax returns.

As others have said, there is no difference in this requirement than one requiring "voluntary" searches of a candidate's home or the release of all private communications. It would be a further edge case and a different debate if the requirement was that one had to be a Republican or a heterosexual, but the principle is the same for this particular debate: these are requirements in addition to the qualifications listed in the Constitution, not administrative and related to orderly elections, and therefore out of bounds.
  #76  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:37 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,962
Agreed that fighting against voter suppression is a greater priority than cunning plans about who can get on the ballot. The latter is pretty much despairing and assuming the former will have succeeded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Back to it, I suppose we are going to see a Supreme Court ruling at some point on just how much control states have over who can appear on the ballot as a candidate and who cannot.
This is, I think, an important point -- it is established already that you may not legislate additional qualifications to hold the office above and beyond what the constitution says. The next question becomes, how far may the administrative/procedural requirements for ballot access go without crossing over into excessively onerous or capricious hoop-jumping or becoming mandates that candidates fulfill a particular preferred profile for holding the office.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-05-2019 at 07:41 PM.
  #77  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:44 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
This is, I think, an important point -- it is established already that you may not legislate additional qualifications to hold the office above and beyond what the constitution says. The next question becomes, how far may the administrative/procedural requirements for ballot access go without crossing over into excessively onerous or capricious hoop-jumping or becoming mandates that candidates fulfill a particular preferred profile for holding the office.
Read Thornton. The Arkansas law at issue said that a term limited Congressman could not appear on the ballot. If the voters wrote the term limited candidate in, he or she could still be elected.

The Court held that to be a distinction without a difference as it noted the difficulty and practical impossibility of winning a write-in campaign.
  #78  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:10 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It doesn't matter what their intentions are; what matters is how it's perceived and characterized, and it'll be viewed as an attempt to rig elections against Trump. It won't matter that it's in states that Trump won't win anyway; it'll play into the Republican victimization complex.
It's not a complex if you are an actual victim. Which they would be in this case. And I thought Democrats believed that voter suppression was the worst thing ever.

Democrats are their own worst enemy. They keep bringing the crazy when all they have to do is calm down and come up with a solid, center left, non-scary candidate with a non-crazy platform. Trump is the most vulnerable incumbent in a long time, and you shouldn't need to resort to tricks to beat him.

I can't imagine how this move would help the Democrats. If Trump still won (and I think this move would make that more likely), the Democrats will look like they tried to play shenanigans and lost. Trump will go around claiming that he has an even bigger mandate because he won without those states anyway, and will use their tactics as an excuse to punish them in various ways. And if Trump lost, his loss would have a giant asterisk behind it and would likely be challenged in court.

Democrats need to beat Trump cleanly. Enough with the shenanigans. Enough grandstanding. Just come up with a reasonable platform acceptable to the majority of people and do the hard work of winning the election properly. Ballot gimmicks will backfire.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 05-05-2019 at 09:12 PM.
  #79  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
It's not a complex if you are an actual victim. Which they would be in this case. And I thought Democrats believed that voter suppression was the worst thing ever.

Democrats are their own worst enemy. They keep bringing the crazy when all they have to do is calm down and come up with a solid, center left, non-scary candidate with a non-crazy platform. Trump is the most vulnerable incumbent in a long time, and you shouldn't need to resort to tricks to beat him.

I can't imagine how this move would help the Democrats. If Trump still won (and I think this move would make that more likely), the Democrats will look like they tried to play shenanigans and lost. Trump will go around claiming that he has an even bigger mandate because he won without those states anyway, and will use their tactics as an excuse to punish them in various ways. And if Trump lost, his loss would have a giant asterisk behind it and would likely be challenged in court.

Democrats need to beat Trump cleanly. Enough with the shenanigans. Enough grandstanding. Just come up with a reasonable platform acceptable to the majority of people and do the hard work of winning the election properly. Ballot gimmicks will backfire.
Only the Democrats need to play by the rules. Republicans can do anything they like and it's always "legitimate".
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #80  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:49 AM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
How about this: A state publishes a list of recommended best practices for candidates, including (among other points) releasing their tax returns. Anyone can get on the ballot (subject to the same reasonable restrictions as exist now), but the ballot would also contain information about whether the candidates meet the best practices. So you might have
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) [Meets all recommended best practices]
Donald Trump (Republican) [Has not released income tax returns, has not held any prior governmental office]
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [Meets all recommended best practices]
I'll choose Texas as a hypothetical example, a state where Democrats are working hard to turn to purple and then to blue. Imagine their Republican legislature choosing its recommended best practices and the ballot looking like this:

Hillary Clinton (Democrat) [Supports killing babies in the womb, does not support your right to own a gun]
Donald Trump (Republican) [Meets all recommended best practices]
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [abuses illegal drugs]

Whatever the "best practices" are will be decided upon by the majority. The majority will decide what is true and fair. Allowing such labeling on the ballot is a tyranny of the majority and a horrible idea.
  #81  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:16 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
How about this: A state publishes a list of recommended best practices for candidates, including (among other points) releasing their tax returns. Anyone can get on the ballot (subject to the same reasonable restrictions as exist now), but the ballot would also contain information about whether the candidates meet the best practices. So you might have
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) [Meets all recommended best practices]
Donald Trump (Republican) [Has not released income tax returns, has not held any prior governmental office]
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [Meets all recommended best practices]
Missouri tried to put "declined to pledge to support term limits" next to congressional candidates on the ballot, and that law was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 05-06-2019 at 03:21 AM.
  #82  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:59 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,756
Quote:
Democrats are their own worst enemy. They keep bringing the crazy when all they have to do is calm down and come up with a solid, center left,non-scary candidate with a non-crazy platform.
A bit off-topic, but yes, this is the reason why the Dems will lose the election.

Quote:
Only the Democrats need to play by the rules. Republicans can do anything they like and it's always "legitimate".
yes, that's the whole point...if the Dems want to remain the party of reason, they have to play by the rules, and explain that to the voters. In non-scary ways.

If they keep using scary extremism, they'll lose the casual, uncommitted voters in the center-- and lose the election.

Last edited by chappachula; 05-06-2019 at 06:01 AM.
  #83  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:33 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,463
Just to continue this hijack that Sam introduced and others have responded to, Hillary Clinton was a solid, center-left, non-scary candidate with a non-scary platform. Al Gore was a solid, center-left, non-scary candidate with a non-scary platform. They lost to what history will probably agree was a bottom-ten president and the worst president, not in that order of course.

Why can't the Democrats do better! </sarcasm>

Last edited by RitterSport; 05-06-2019 at 07:33 AM.
  #84  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:34 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
yes, that's the whole point...if the Dems want to remain the party of reason, they have to play by the rules, and explain that to the voters. In non-scary ways.

If they keep using scary extremism, they'll lose the casual, uncommitted voters in the center-- and lose the election.
And if they do what you say is best, they'll lose the very angry, very progressive voters, many of whom stayed home or voted other than Clinton in 2016.

Or neither of us really know what's going to happen, which is more likely. I think the Democrats should use the kitchen sink approach -- "reason", logic, decency, etc., and also every possible trick within the letter of the law that they can get away with.
  #85  
Old 05-06-2019, 08:24 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And if they do what you say is best, they'll lose the very angry, very progressive voters, many of whom stayed home or voted other than Clinton in 2016. ...
Did they?

I think there were angry voters they lost but they weren't angry progressives. Maybe angry progressives didn't turn out lots but if so they never have any better. Young white progressives have crappy turnout as a general rule. The missing voters (relative to 2012) were more Black voters.

No Jill Stein voters would not have all otherwise voted HRC. The Sanders supporters who voted for Trump were angry but progressives? No.
  #86  
Old 05-06-2019, 08:35 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Did they?

I think there were angry voters they lost but they weren't angry progressives. Maybe angry progressives didn't turn out lots but if so they never have any better. Young white progressives have crappy turnout as a general rule. The missing voters (relative to 2012) were more Black voters.

No Jill Stein voters would not have all otherwise voted HRC. The Sanders supporters who voted for Trump were angry but progressives? No.
I don't know, which is my point. We'll see what happens -- guessing who's going to turnout under various circumstances is pretty much just guessing, as a rule. I'm in favor of the kitchen sink approach; others want to "play by the rules".
  #87  
Old 05-06-2019, 10:49 AM
K364's Avatar
K364 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
The states that could pull this off are probably not states that Trump would carry anyway, I would imagine, so it might not make any difference.
Haven't read the entire thread, but while this is absolutely true, it would allow the Democrats to provide 100% of their funding to contested state battles.
  #88  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:12 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,338
This is a bad idea. What we learned from the Birthers is that it's up to the votes to decide whether non-constitutional qualifications are significant. If Trump doesn't want to release his tax returns, people don't have to vote for him. If they want to regardless, they're stupid but it's their right.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #89  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:44 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,685
Can we just call this proposal what it is?

A radical solution to a minor annoyance that is really meant to get people fired up to go vote next November. It's the Democratic counterpart to the Republican obsession about who is going to eat a particular wedding cake made by a fundamentalist baker. The issue of whose names are going to be represented by half a cent of icing is a non-problem in our society, but it is blown up out of proportion to make people angry at the other side.

Nobody votes based on a candidate's tax returns. Trump is one of the least ethical human beings I can think of (short of those who do physical harm to others, putting children in cages notwithstanding) but in the end if there's a voter who would actually vote for Trump except for line 32(a) of Trump's probably fraudulent 1040, that voter is a fucking idiot who should not be coddled.
  #90  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:18 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,861
Why bother gerrymandering when you can just keep candidates off the ballot all together!
  #91  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:22 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,338
I can see a rational voter refusing to vote for a candidate because (s)he didn't disclose tax returns. In fact, I likely would in light of the longstanding norm for candidates to disclose their returns.

ETA: You can't gerrymander a presidential election. But the sentiment is valid.
__________________
This can only end in tears.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 05-06-2019 at 02:22 PM.
  #92  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:36 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I can see a rational voter refusing to vote for a candidate because (s)he didn't disclose tax returns.
I can't. Think of all the substantive issues in the world, and all the substantive differences between candidates; and if a voter places "disclosure of tax return" as their number one, sine qua non issue, they are nuts.

Let's just be clear about this: pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey has more basis as a longstanding presidential norm than does releasing tax returns.
  #93  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:42 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
It's not the lack of releasing the tax returns in itself. It's his reasons for not releasing them, about which we can only speculate, but none of the possibilities are very good for him, and some are extremely bad.
  #94  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:43 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I can see a rational voter refusing to vote for a candidate because (s)he didn't disclose tax returns. In fact, I likely would in light of the longstanding norm for candidates to disclose their returns.

ETA: You can't gerrymander a presidential election. But the sentiment is valid.
First, why would it be limited to presidential candidates? The principle could apply to anyone disfavored - manufacture a reason to remove them from the ballot. All you need is a majority in both houses and the governorship. As for the presidential election, any state with that criteria - both houses and the governorship - could then have a permanent win condition - no opposing party members would ever be elected, and that states' electoral votes would only ever go for that party.

I don't know if I'm making a good point, but the idea seems colossally bad.

Last edited by Bone; 05-06-2019 at 02:45 PM.
  #95  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
First, why would it be limited to presidential candidates? The principle could apply to anyone disfavored - manufacture a reason to remove them from the ballot. All you need is a majority in both houses and the governorship. As for the presidential election, any state with that criteria - both houses and the governorship - could then have a permanent win condition - no opposing party members would ever be elected, and that states' electoral votes would only ever go for that party.

I don't know if I'm making a good point, but the idea seems colossally bad.
All the more reason for a new Voting Rights Act, or even better, a constitutional amendment that fixes this and related issues (voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.).
  #96  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:57 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
All the more reason for a new Voting Rights Act, or even better, a constitutional amendment that fixes this and related issues (voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.).
I don't know how to reconcile this with your previous statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I agree, and I don't see how the two are incompatible. Fight with every tool available in the process realm, just as the Republicans are doing, and focus on the "here and now" on issues to win elections.
What I wrote in post #94 is a tool available in the process realm. I'd be opposed because it's a terrible idea and bad for democracy, but based on what you've written it appears you would not be opposed. Do I have that right?
  #97  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
... I don't know if I'm making a good point, but the idea seems colossally bad.
Agreed. It would push people towards the pitchforks and torches remedy.
  #98  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:07 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It's not the lack of releasing the tax returns in itself. It's his reasons for not releasing them, about which we can only speculate, but none of the possibilities are very good for him, and some are extremely bad.
If it isn't about the tax returns, as you state, then make it about the issue that IS the issue. And your issue is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- not that he hasn't released his tax returns, but you don't like his reasons for not releasing his tax returns? That's it? This is the lie out of the 10,000 he's told so far that disqualifies him from people voting for him?

God, this reasoning sounds like a long-past ex-girlfriend: "It's not that you did X... it's your reasons for doing X!"
  #99  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:07 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I can't. Think of all the substantive issues in the world, and all the substantive differences between candidates; and if a voter places "disclosure of tax return" as their number one, sine qua non issue, they are nuts.

Let's just be clear about this: pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey has more basis as a longstanding presidential norm than does releasing tax returns.
That's not the point. I don't wonder about what a POTUS who refuses to pardon the turkey has to hide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Agreed. It would push people towards the pitchforks and torches remedy.
Considering that GOP governors and secretaries of state are able to remove large groups of black people from the voters rolls at the stroke of a pen, I think it's clear that the pitchforks are not going to be taken up.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #100  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:08 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,397
Currently, the swing states of Ohio, Iowa and Florida are all red at the executive and legislative level. If the GOP banned a Democrat from appearing on the presidential ballot there, it would be highly consequential. Trump could lose Michigan and Pennsylvania and still prevail in 2020.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017