this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
90 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19222 readers
2586 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I said this in another thread - 1.7 billion in 107 days means spending $15,887,850 a day. Let's be generous and assume a crazy 12 hour work day, 7 days a week.

That's $1,323,987 an hour, every hour. 12 hours a day, for 107 days... with NOTHING to show for it.

[–] givesomefucks 13 points 5 days ago (2 children)

It's been Brewster's Millions since 2016, and at this point the only thing crazier than the party trying it a fourth time is us letting the same people keep calling the shots.

They pick their candidate long before the primary, and before 10 states vote they declare a winner and say it's over. If a Republican wins, it's just not a big deal to them.

Because in four years they'll get even more money to make sure a progressive can't make it to the general

[–] jordanlund 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

2020 was the worst, picking Biden after the 3rd primary, and that one being South Carolina...

Because we really want red states determining who the Democratic candidate is... 🙄

[–] givesomefucks 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'd love to see it by last election's turnout percentage.

Vermont went 64% D, let them go first.

Wyoming got 26%, so they go last.

Some state wants to go first? Tell em to work on their turnout in the general.

It seems common sense, and in a close race it trickles down to battleground states after the main voting blocks, while maintaining their voter engagement.

Plus while I don't think primaries campaigns hurt generals like the DNC keeps saying, this let's the Dem on Dem ads be ran in places that are voting blue no matter who.

[–] jordanlund 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Ooh... that's a FANTASTIC idea that Iowa and New Hampshire will never let happen. ;)

I think the trick is each state would need to run two primaries, but then some already do, and some run a caucus AND a primary.

The problem here would be burning through all the blue states and not getting enough delegates to become the nominee. Then you really WOULD have Red states picking the candidate.

Yeah, based on this delegate counter:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/delegate-count-by-state

By the time you burned through all the blue states, you'd have assigned 2,541 delegates with 1,976 needed to be the nominee. It's possible that someone wouldn't hit that number just based on the blue states.

Under this model, the Democratic Primary for 2028 would be this, then invert it for the Republican Primary.

District of Columbia - 90.3% - 39 delegates
Vermont - 63.2% - 33
Maryland - 62.6% - 134
Massachusetts - 61.2% - 132
Hawaii - 60.6% - 24
California - 58.5% - 587
Washington - 57.2% - 132
Delaware - 56.6% - 37
Connecticut - 56.4% - 88
New York - 55.9% - 274
Rhode Island - 55.5% - 45
Oregon - 55.3% - 89
Illinois - 54.4% - 222
Colorado - 54.2% - 104
Maine - 52.4% - 46
New Jersey - 52.0% - 175
New Mexico - 51.9% - 56
Virginia - 51.8% - 99
NE-2 - 51.3% - 65
Minnesota - 50.9% - 114
New Hampshire - 50.7% - 46

Pennsylvania - 48.7%
Wisconsin - 48.7%
Georgia - 48.5%
Michigan - 48.3%
North Carolina - 47.7%
Nevada - 47.5%
Arizona - 46.7%
ME-2 - 44.8%
Ohio - 43.9%
Florida - 43.0%
Iowa - 42.5%
Texas - 42.5%
Alaska - 41.4%
Kansas - 41.0%
South Carolina - 40.4%
Missouri - 40.1%
Indiana - 39.6%
Nebraska - 38.9%
Montana - 38.5%
Louisiana - 38.2%
Mississippi - 38.0%
Utah - 37.8%
Tennessee - 34.5%
South Dakota - 34.2%
Alabama - 34.1%
Kentucky - 33.9%
Arkansas - 33.6%
Oklahoma - 31.9%
North Dakota - 30.5%
Idaho - 30.4%
West Virginia - 28.1%
Wyoming - 25.8%

[–] captainlezbian 1 points 4 days ago

I want same day country wide just like the regular election. Primaries are an electability test and need to be treated as such

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

We want it so much they were moved to first! It was so clearly a corrupt move and a punishment to two states that said he sucked. Not that Iowa and New Hampshire deserved their prominence, but the whole fiasco had a very clear narrative.

[–] grue 1 points 5 days ago

Brewster had a way more compelling platform, though ("vote none of the above").