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.
A bit off-topic, but yes, this is the reason why the Dems will lose the election.
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.
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>
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Why bother gerrymandering when you can just keep candidates off the ballot all together!
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.
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.
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.
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.).
I don’t know how to reconcile this with your previous statement:
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?
Agreed. It would push people towards the pitchforks and torches remedy.
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!” :rolleyes:
That’s not the point. I don’t wonder about what a POTUS who refuses to pardon the turkey has to hide.
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.
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.