U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 23, 2016 06:39 AM UTC
88 Comments
There was a time that this type of wacka doodlishness was constrained to back alleys and mimeographed purple diatribes. Well, folks, it is now reached the respectability of our major MSM outlets:
We must weed out ignorant Americans from the electorate – David Harsanyi – Washington Post
BTW – I'm sure that many of you will note the Colorado connection.
But, before I leave you for the day, I want to share John Oliver's observations about our process of picking candidates that we eventually get to choose from in our presidential election:
John Oliver nails it. This is why we're still hanging with Bernie. He's got a good shot to actually change the rules for next primary election. And to pull the platform leftward, meaningless as Bennet shows us that is, and to help down-ticket progressive candidates.
For those of you who don't think changing primary rules to make them consistent and fair is important, you'll be glad of clear, democratic rules, when Elizabeth Warren primaries Hilary Clinton's second term, and the party establishment scoffs "No way!"
Because, hate to break it to you, but EW is much more with him than With Her.
So, you no longer want Warren as veep?
Does anyone want Warren as VP? Hillary won't be moderated by Warren's more leftward views. Ms. Clinton has made her decisions on where she stands (pressure from Bernie, excepted). Hillary already has someone who will do every important thing a VP might be asked to– her husband. The Clintons also don't have a history that exemplifies forgiveness for those who transgress against them– even if that transgression is simply to publicly question them. Whoever accepts the role is in for 4 or 8 years of total obscurity. Why sign up for that unless all you want to look forward to is a nice pension and speaking fees.
Stay in the Senate, Liz.
Pretty sure Warren feels pretty much the same.
I would go for Al Franken for Veep. Thoughtful, intelligent, people usually make good leaders…especially if they have a great since of humor. I was listening to Kirsten Gillibrand the other day and was reminded what a sharp cookie is she. Both are presidential material if pressed into service…which is, to me, the bottom line.
I'm a big fan of Franken and, as a bonus, he comes from a state with a Democratic gov. and won't cost us a Senate seat. Mass has a Repub gov. but, as Frank Underwood pointed out. a Warren loss would be filled in a special election within 120 days. I do like Warren but have mixed feelings about an all woman ticket. Some voters will vote against Hillary purely because she is female — and that includes a troubling number of women. Some will vote for Hillary because of her womanhood. I suspect those gender voters don't care about the veep, their mind is made up. But I also really like Amy Klobuchar and if we want a 4 X chromosome ticket, that one works.
Of course, I'd want her as veep. That would be ideal. But your argument that it would leave a vacuum in her Senate seat, one likely to be filled by a Republican, is valid. She's pretty powerful and influential where she is.
I can accept her as veep because, as Frank Underwood noted, her seat would be filled in a special election within 120 days under a mass law passed when they feared Romney would fill the seat of a president Kerry. I gotta say, a Clinton-Warren ticket would sure lure the Mensa vote.
I love all the 57 different ways that delegates are selected.
It demonstrates that we are a union of states and not a state.
Yes, Bernie has created a space for himself and his movement to have great influence and affect change but none of that will mean much if HRC loses and Trump wins.
Warren has also refused to endorsed Bernie. A more honest way of putting it is that Warren has declined to endorse in this race, probably because while she is cheering on Bernie and his movement she also wants to be in a position to strongly support HRC against Trump.
I think it highly unlikely that Warren has any interest in being HRC's VP but also think it just as unlikely she has any interest in being anyone's VP.
Bennet's voting record hardly makes his presence in the Senate meaningless unless you think it's meaningless to have someone who votes the same way as your heroes over 90% of the time as opposed to a Republican who votes only to obstruct. It's meaningless only if you think it's meaningless to have someone in the Senate who can contribute to a Democratic Senate majority that would return all leadership functions, the leadership of and final say on all committee, all investigations and decisions on what comes to a vote to Democrats, including Bernie, Warren and their allies. Calling all of that meaningless is, I'm sorry, a perfectly ridiculous, irrational position to take.
Your proclaiming that Warren would (you say when, not if so you present it as a certainty) primary an incumbent Dem President in 2020 seems to be based on nothing more concrete than wishful thinking. I can only wonder what motivates your apparent wish for a level of bitter division within the Dem party over the next four years that would be required to lead to such an eventuality instead of wishing for the integration of the reforms and policies Sanders and Warren are fighting for to strengthen, expand and unite it. Whatever that motivation is (spite?) I doubt very much that Warren shares it.
Honestly, get a grip.
What I said, BC, is that the party platform, whether at the state or national level, is basically meaningless. If you can point out to me any candidate's policy or piece of legislation which was influenced or passed because of a party platform, please do.
Senator Michael Bennet, when he started disparaging Coloradocare, went directly against the Colorado Democratic Party platform, and 20 county resolutions supporting Amendment 69 Coloradocare. And he has not faced any consequences for doing so. Good evidence for the party platform being meaningless, and for Bennet having complete contempt and disregard for progressive voters in the Democratic party.
What you said was "as Bennet shows us" and here you add that he has "complete contempt for progressive voters", both irrational over the top assessments. First it has never been the case that every pol supports every aspect of his or her party's platform. Second Bennet's voting record and the legislation he has supported does not demonstrate "complete contempt" for progressive voters.
And forget demanding that I provide you with a list. Since you are the one making these ridiculous statements you are the one who needs to produce evidence that the preponderance of Bennet's legislative activity shows the contempt you claim it does. You are the one who should go to the party platform, it's easy enough to google, and show that it has been completely irrelevant, that not just Bennet but all the Dems you lump with him, have failed to try to develop or pass legislation with any of the goals cited in the platform. Of course neither of us will be able to point to much legislation that has actually been passed because of the reality of GOP obstruction in the service of their very different platform. According to you that difference doesn't matter at all becuase the Dem's has no relevance.
While you're at it, maybe you could provide back up for your contention that if HRC is elected Warren will primary her to prevent a sitting Dem President's second term.
I don't think Warren would approve of these wild emotional statements of yours half as much as you like to think she would. I hate to tell you this, knowing how you detest them, but I think she's too much of a rational sensible politician to have much use for a lot of hysterical nonsense. We certainly haven't heard any from her so far.
Bernie can be a big time obstructionist, as in his hold on the President's postal governor appointees.
Warren and Franken are too old. HRC needs a dynamic younger politician as her VP nominee who can help offset her pushing 70.
“Bennet having complete contempt…….” It’s all a matter of one’s perspective. For me, Bennet is helping to protect my wallet against a massive raid by ultra-liberals. No need to say more, since the ill-proposed single payer proposal has already been beaten to death in other threads.
Harsanyi one of many reasons for so many ignorant voters.
Note to Austerians of all stripes (this includes M. Bennet):
It's not just in the U.K., though. It's everywhere there's a ConservaDem who wants to cut meager social benefits (Social Security and Medicare) to “save” them, anywhere there’s a money manager with his eye on someone’s pension, anywhere there’s the attitude that the takers don’t really deserve the concern of a rich and fruitful society.
And it's not just dangerous. It's cruel, inhumane, proven not to work (well, for the purposes explained in public), and is the direct result of Triangulation and the many Fix the Debt lies passed on over the years by Corporate Democrats such as Udall and Bennet, who now should be better known as “Neoliberals”*.
*- and "liberal" definitely has an alternate meaning than the one we might assume here at CPols.
That's a great piece by John Oliver. too funny…Thanks, James.
mamajama55,
Here in Colorado, I'll be delighted if we simply HAVE a unified primary, including elections for President and downballot races and ending the odd combination of caucus, conventions and primaries.
Sounds good to me.
Yeah, this. We aren't saving any money by having caucuses AND primaries – only by not having a separate Presidential primary. The only benefit gained from having a late primary is the ability of state lawmakers to campaign after the session ends for the year. But even they have to make their presence known enough to get through the caucus and convention system, so it can't be impossible to simply move the primary up to where the current caucuses are being held.
I would gladly scrap the presidential caucuses, the only format where Bernie's minority of energized voters generally beat hillary. In contrast, Hillary beat bernie in 13 open primaries and all but one closed primaries , that exception being oregon. Yes, the undemocratic caucus system should go. Note that Bernie eat Hillary 57-43 in the Nebraska caucus __ she beat him 59 41 in that same state's primary.
and with it, the notion of super delegates…right?
…and would you prefer winner-take-all primaries?
Less sure about the supers, duke, when you see how the lack of such a balance wheel nominated Trump. But we should eliminate caucuces for presidential, allow independents, but not republicans , to vote in primaries and keep the proportional system.
So you think the party should keep a trump (NPI) card to make sure the existing leadership is not forced to do something they don't want to do by those unruly voters? Are you sure that's democracy?
Uncommitted delegates? I don’t know….
Interesting but, in this case, hypothetical discussion since the outcome of this primary race would be the same even if there were no super delegates. HRC is winning the plain old ordinary democratically elected pledged delegates, remember? By more than Obama did.
I'm not actually referring to this race. Either you believe a system should be built in to help a party protect itself from change not accepted by the existing power structure, or you don't. I don't see a middle ground.
There is a middle ground and I think ex officio delegates — which is what we should call them — do provide a buffer against fleeting passions. The constitution, after all, guarantees a republican form of government, not a democracy. The fact that a sophomore from New Paltz state college can defeat Averill Harriman for a delegate slot (as actually happened in 1972) doesn't mean his views outweigh those of a man who shaped American policies for 50 years. As to letting Independents, not Republicans, vote in a primary that actually pulls a party to the center, not the left, in most elections, Democrats as a whole are to the left of Independents and in 2008 Independents favored Hillary over Obama. The only reason an outsider like Bernie failed to win this year was that he had almost no support among African American voters, who are a core democrat constituency. This would have been a great year for Jesse Jackson.
I'll take that as a "yes".
Oh…silly me…I thought the intent was to use a republic as a tool designed to implement a democracy, not a democracy used as a tool to implement a republic. It said, as I recall, "all men are created equal" (racial and gender exclusions being what we have fought to overcome for 200 years and counting) and I took that to mean they objected to aristocracy and oligarchy…not to mention monarchy.
How little I know…
A democracy, in its purest form, is mob rule. The constitution, with its bicameral legislature, independent judiciary and bill of rights, was absolutely designed to slow things down. Don't forget how many of those anti-gay laws passed popular referendums. You didn't accept them as valid, and in the end, neither did the Supreme Court. By the way, I'll buy you dinner if you can cite the clause of the Constitution that says "all men are created equal." Good luck hunting for that!
Not really a government issue in the first place. The constitution has nothing to say on the matter of how parties select their candidates one way or the other.
I personally agree with many of the changes Bernie and his movement support but with the full knowledge that those who have a different view aren't ignoring the constitution or endorsing monachy, neither one of which has anything to do with this particular debate about party affairs.
And V is quite right about of our system being a republic that limits pure democracy within constitutionaly set parameters to protect against the passions of the majority.
That's why we don't let the majority vote to have a religious test or to take away the rights of certain groups of citizens. That's why we have a constitution that's very hard to amend. But, once again, the question of how parties choose their candidates isn't addressed in our constitutional framework so I think you're both barking up the wrong tree there. This is strictly a matter of preference and pressure, not entitlement. If you can get your preferred reforms through by applying pressure, good for you.
You are right about that, of course. Poorly stated. The same group of men…on the same mission created both the Declaration and the Constitution. I don't believe that it was the intention of the writers of the Constitution to exclude anyone from having the same rights as everyone else. They used the Constitution to create a government where everyone could be represented fairly But I gotta go…..
Replying to Blue Cat.
You're right, of course, that the Constitution doesn't mention political parties, though they are not outside its reach on such issues as all-white primaries. But in citing its principles as guidelines , both Duke and I are well within our rhetorical rights.
SuperDelegates (I hate that term, they don't wear capes and Kryptonite does not kill them. They are just ex officio members ) kind of reflect the original notion of the electoral College. It also hints at the Senate in the days when state legislatures appointed them. Appointed Senators
gave us Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster. Direct election gave us Joe McCarthy, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum.
Neither side is objectively right or wrong and Duke's willingness to junk a caucus system that favors his own minority of highly motivated activists is proof of his high minded sincerity. He is wrong, however, to say the Constitution said "all men are created equal." That's the Declaration of Independence, which has no status beyond rhetorical flourishes in Constitutional Law. The actual Constitution said some men were worth only three-fifths of what white men were and women had only those rights that men deigned to give them.
Yes you and Duke are both entitled to your rhetorical flourishes and to working to get the changes you want or to prevent changes you don't like.
I'm also entitled to start my own political party and we can decide how we want to select our candidates any way we want without reference to the constitution or your…. ummmm…. flourishes.
My point is that bringing the constitution, the Republic, democracy, monarchy etc into it doesn't change the fact that the issue of super delegates is a party rules matter, certainly subject to pressure but not something that can very successfully be argued on the basis of overblown rhetorical flourishes. Of which, may I say V, you are a bit overly fond.
Would this be the right time to quote your favorite saying, the one about the pot calling the kettle black?
Cute.
Why allow independents to vote in a PARTY election?
The system is currently constituted in such a way that the real democracy happens at the candidate selection stage rather than in the general election where there are two predetermined choices available for president. It's totally understandable that people who don't want to publicly endorse a party still want to be part of the process. If party structure and process weren't so hugely influential for everyone, then nobody would care how the club is run.
Also, political parties mostly come into contact with the general public around elections – it's natural that the first overt show of support from prospective members would be with a vote (except the biggest election publicity happens well after the registration deadline)
On the other hand, opening things up does lead to possible ratfucking on a large scale. Weirdly, avowed party registration is something people take seriously. There's a reason why tides of hardcore partisans of any stripe don't re-register to influence caucuses and primaries at any scale.
I am totally opposed to "open" primaries.
In Colorado, it is trivial to change affiliation via the online process.
As someone who loves ratfucking, I am a proud member of the GOP: Party of Hate® until July 01, 2016.
If you want to participate in a party event, then you should be a member.
As Tom says, that doesn't happen much. It's hard enought to get registered voters to get off their butts to vote much less change affiliations for the purpose of screwing with the other party or with any party if they're indies.
I understand why independents want "in". But I also understand that an organization should have control over its own representation.
There are ways to fix the broken system that don't involve interfering with the operations of a private organization. We almost had a chance here in Colorado back in 2009/2010 when the legislature and Bernie Beuscher agreed to allow trials of Instant Runoff and/or Condorcet voting methods on voting machines. Unfortunately, between changes in elected leadership and the general not-so-great results from the trials, the idea was shelved and our newly annointed electronic voting machines are still not certified to run these better styled elections that could open up third party viability.
First, thing we need to do is get rid of all the laws that favor and limit our elections to two parties.
Second, adopt an instant runoff system.
Third, eliminate the state run party affiliation system. If the parties are "private clubs" as Oliver suggests, let them control and account for their own membership. Only dues paying, card carrying members need apply. You register to vote and that's it – no registering with the state what your party affiliation is.
Fourth, no government resources for primaries or caucuses. This is a private political club matter; the state and our tax dollars should have nothing to do with it.
Actually, having a state-run registration system does provide a balance against the party system. I'll explain toward the end, but first let me address the rest…
In Colorado, making elections fair for all means:
1) Making all candidates qualify for the ballot in the same manner – by petitioning.
2) Removing preferential ballot positioning for major party candidates (and secondary preferential positioning for other qualifying party candidates).
3) Instituting Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice (or other Condorcet) voting.
With some kind of ranked preference voting in place, candidates do not qualify for the ballot via party nomination; in fact, they should probably qualify for the ballot PRIOR to any party primary endorsement being given, with a period to withdraw after the party primary. Parties then give out an endorsement via whatever mechanism they choose.
Parties in charge got the state to support their primary elections because it enhanced the democratic process and saved them money. But I think we've finally reached a point where we can hold secure (enough for primaries) elections via electronic means – and by mail for those who don't use computers – for a reasonably cheap sum. We don't need state-run primaries any more, and it's time for an advancement of the democratic-republican process.
And here's where maintaining state party registration comes in: without it, a malicious political party who wants to give a candidate extra weight can set up sham parties and load up the ballot with endorsements. By limiting a person to one recognized political party per election cycle, the state can limit the number of parties recognized for endorsement purposes. (E.g. parties endorsing on the ballot must meet a threshold of 5% of a district's registered voters, and parties with the highest membership get first placement on the endorsement line, or some kind of enhanced endorsement symbol for exceeding a certain threshold.)
So, PR, you oppose what the Working Families Party does in New York?
Actually, as a former New York resident, I think New York's fusion voting system has a lot to offer, and WFP has done a good job of making itself a useful part of the NY political structure. (Remember that JFK famously sought the Liberal Party line in NY, too.) I often voted third party when I lived in NY just to show my discontent with the major parties; I'd still vote for a major party candidate, just not on their ballot line.
What I don't like about the NY system: (1) separate ballot lines for each party even if it's the same candidate (and worse, on the governor's ticket the ability of a party to screw itself by nominating a different Lt. Governor with the same gubernatorial candidate), and (2) high barriers to entry for party recognition and ballot access.
I would like to see NY's system changed from nomination (only one person from that party may run) to endorsement (only one person from that party gains their official endorsement, but multiple persons from the party can remain on the ballot – without any note of party affiliation), with all endorsements under a single ballot line. I think that would work better for the candidates and for third parties, assuming other reforms I mentioned were also enacted. On its own, though, NY's system doesn't really empower third parties the way many would like to see; WFP has very few candidates in elected office who aren't also Democrats.
Phoenix, independents should be allowed to vote because Democrats (and Republicans, of course) will strenuously woo their votes in the general. The wooing should be sweetened by including an incentive to extend voter influence in the primary. Indies should be allowed to affiliate with either party in a primary. As Colorado and most other states do now.
I've spent plenty of hours canvassing and phoning Independents, as well as registering voters, and I can tell you that Indies do want to make their voices heard in elections – they just don't trust either party to have their interests at heart.
I would have said that the Democratic party has more of the "working folk / people like me" interests at heart, but I've become less and less convinced of that as I see the actions of our "leaders" like Governor Hickenlooper, Senator Bennet, who seem completely willing to sell their constituents' health and well-being in exchange for big corporate donations.
The answer to that is that the way to trust the party is to take part in its operations to help guide it.
If they don't and can't trust the party enough to represent them, then they shouldn't be choosing its candidates.
Having said that, the parties can in fact invite independents to vote in their primaries. But that should be a decision of the party and not one of the government.
Sit down and take a drink of water, MJ, because you're in for a shock. I agree with you! I am reasonably content, however, with a Colorado system that allows Independents to declare a party affiliation on election day and vote in the primary. They can always switchback to unaffiliated later. And, yes, I commend you for looking past just this race. Hillary beat Bernie in 13 open primaries as well as all the closed ones except Oregon. As I said, in the past, Independents have tended to pull the party to the middle, not a bad thing if Victory in November is the goal.
There you go, Voyageur, "mansplaining," again.
I'm not a fan of Hickenlooper or Bennet personally – and let's not forget that one was a result of the other being elected to office, at least initially.
But let's face it: we have a nearly open primary system here in Colorado, and reasonably open ballot access for candidates to make the primary ballot. Any marginally popular figure in the state has time to make the primary ballot by gaining the signatures required. So our problem is either: (a) no progressive candidates exist who want to enter these races, or (b) the state's Democratic primary voters (both party registered voters, and independents who choose to register as Democrats for purposes of the primary) choose the less progressive alternative.
Go back to the Mike Miles campaign – a progressive guy who spent a whole lot of time campaigning before the race was seen as winnable. He made the ballot and was certainly not invisible, but lost decisively to the much more conservative Ken Salazar. Colorado's Democratic primary voters are not, in the majority, us.
He not only made the ballot, he won via the caucus system to take the top slot.
Dem voters on the whole being more moderate than caucus goers, there was never any doubt among party insiders that Salazar would win the primary. I was a pretty new PCP at the time who considered Salazar much more electable statewide even though Miles was very appealing and the fact that there was nothing to worry about despite causus results was patiently explained to me. It wasn't a matter of "the man" screwing "the people". It was a matter of "the people" in a democratic process being more moderate than the handful of hardcore caucus goers.
That was a hell no of a speech Miles gave in Pueblo
He gave great speeches and Salazar's were dull as dishwater. It was a bit of a chore trying to appear enthralled and waving our Salazar signs.
Just one problem with Miles. He didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. For Salazar getting elected statewide again was about as hard as falling off a log. And he was the one who had rescued us from Texas style GOP scorched earth redistricting. Also strong for labor. Appealed across a broad spectrum.
Primary voters made the best choice.
Yep
Plus, Salazar was the first Latino elected to statewide office in Colorado.
I actually agree with PR. Parties should be allowed to nominate the candidate of their choice based on their members' wishes.
There are two ways to influence the outcome of this choice on the election. One is for unaffiliated voters to simply refuse to vote for the candidate a party chooses. An unaffiliated voter who shares feelings on some issues with the Democratic Party but believes that party has strayed too far from its liberal roots could simply not vote for Democratic candidates– either by undervoting on particular office lines or by selecting a minor party candidate. While Democrats often describe this choice as childish or as actively harming the nation, it's the party's job to nominate a candidate that's electable. If that requires votes from outside the party, then that has to be a consideration of the party's nominating process. If they're unable to field such a candidate, then they may need to rethink their process. Remember, if their private club can't move a nominee to election with only its members' support, they need to find a path to election, voters need not trip over themselves to provide it.
Second, you can work to break the parties' stranglehold on the nominating process by creating election systems that are more open to differing voices. One might start by actually teaching in our civics classes the reality that PR and other are expressing here– the Republican and Democratic parties are not an immutable foundation for our republic, they're simply private clubs that have taken advantage of the structure of our system to create a duopoly on political power. That power is one of the few things that can actually be taken away. We may be seeing that with the Republican Party this cycle.
I don't want the right to help Democrats or Republicans to choose the candidates for office in this country. I'd rather see that become less and less the reality.
Phoenix, I've been a reliable Democratic volunteer for decades. I'm a PCP now. But the bloom is definitely off the rose ( my dearly departed friend Diane said that the definition of "bloom off rose" is being able to fart in the same room as your beloved).
Bennet and Hickenlooper's catering to their corporate buddies is a big, fat stinky fart in the same room to this Democrat, and I question how much they really care.
My point is: perhaps the Party isn't what you hope it would be. It certainly isn't everything I wish it was. But aside from working within the party and with public opinion within the state, the party is what it is, and elects the candidates it does mostly because that's who the general party membership supports. We can offer more progressive alternatives through the caucus/convention process or through early support, but in the end even with progressive state party leadership we seem to wind up with moderate candidates, and the electorate seems to want that. We need a broader base of people agreeing with us if we want to move the needle.
Only more moderate Dems win statewide in Colorado. Period. That's one reason why Dem primary voters who want to win choose them. Another reason is that a majority of registered Dems in Colorado are moderates themselves. That's the reality whether MJ likes it or not, regardless of any amount of rule changing.
Trump would still be the party nominee even if the GOP had as many super-delegates as the Democratic Party has. No other nominee was even close to the 50% line; I doubt even a unified bloc of super-delegates could have given the win outright to another candidate. Blocked Trump from a first ballot, possibly, but given his decisive lead at this point, I think he would have gained enough super-delegate support to put him over the top. Like the fight in the Democratic Party, there would have been a wholesale revolt if the leading primary delegate winner didn't get the party nomination. FWIW, the GOP has some super-delegates, but they don't carry nearly the same weight as they do in the Democratic Party.
True, PR. Trump won because the Rs allowed so many winner take all or winner take most primaries where he might get 20 pct of the vote in a field of 15 and reap a majority of the delegates. The Rs set this system up to make it easier for a future Romney to beat a Hermain Cain. They got Trump.
And that's the honest truth, there… Heh.
Party caucuses and the heavy super-delegate count both stem from the same desire: to maintain the party's values intact by emphasizing the voices of those who work to keep it running and those who represent it in public office. Supporting one while calling the other "undemocratic" misses the point.
Looks like Bernie is taking heavy heat now from fellow progressives, according to a well written article on Politico. Getting it for prolonging his campaign and losing focus on issues. Also for not doing enough to condemn the violence in Nevada and the death threats agains the Nevada Democratic party. Of course, for those who feel Bernie can do no wrong, the article won't matter.
…care to single out anyone?
No, they know who they are.
For a little comic relief and perspective:
Also, “Socky McSockface” (snert snork) looks like a prototype of a Trump sex toy.
He obviously means me and Frank Underwood, Duke.
That would have been my guess…
Will Bernie pass his "Wasserman Test?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/23/can-bernie-sanders-help-knock-off-debbie-wasserman-schultz/
Today is launch day for our Harvesting Liberty project, a partnership between the National Hemp Association, Growing Warriors and Patagonia. Enjoy…
Harvesting Liberty from Patagonia on Vimeo.
That's an inspiring video, Michael. So that's the backstory on the flag Ms. Leonhart was so upset about. I hope those guys are not still processing their hemp by hand.
That flag Leonhart was so upset about flew over the Capitol Building almost three years ago. This one is brand new, grown in Kentucky soil by veterans and hand-sewn by Appalachian women. They processed most everything by hand last season; this years crop will be more mechanized! Patagonia has been a great partner on this project.
I believe the latest polling shows that the '08 PUMA's were less likely by 12% to vote for Obama than the Sanders voters will vote for Clinton this year. And, in '08 nearly all of the PUMA's ended up supporting Obama after all. So everyone should just chill.
I'd certainly chill about polls showing His Hairness having a tight race with Clinton. Sanders supporters are still registering their discontent, much as Republicans were showing their discontent with Trump in earlier polls, putting him very much in a double-digit polling hole vs. either Dem.
We'll mostly come home to vote with the candidate that we most agree with, and sore feelings will largely be left behind.
Yep.
BTW. I talked to some of those PUMAs on the mall during the convention. They looked like Republican ladies who lunch and it soon became clear that's what most of the ones I talked to really were. They were just out there trying to make trouble for the Dems.They claimed they were voting for McCain because HRC didn't get the nomination. When I asked them why they would react to that by voting for a pair of candidates who opposed Hillary on every issue instead of Obama who agreed with Hillary on almost everything they didn't seem to know how to answer that. When I asked them if they were registered Dems they said it was none of my business.
Uh-huh.
C'mon. Caucus this year was fun!
Ours was so crowded we didn't get much of the usual stuff done. Like getting people to sign up to be PCPs, etc. which is kind of the point (organizing the HDs) of having an actual meeting rather than just dropping a ballot. But it was nice seeing some old neighborhood acquaintances and meeting some new ones.
I do think if we went to a pure primary system our left most wing would be very disappointed. The more moderate candidates would continue to win as they do in our Dem primaries now because average Colorado Dem voters are more moderate than average caucus attendees who represent a tiny fraction of registered Dems. That would be the case even if indies were allowed, maybe more so.
Candidates like Ken Salazar win our primaries over more liberal candidates on the ballot because more Colorado Dems vote for them. Bennet isn't a good example of that scenario because he was a centrist primaried by another centrist, not a more liberal candidate, but he also won because more Dems voted for him than for Romanoff. These were not stolen elections. Moderates are the kind of Dem candidates who win primaries and general elections for statewide and purple CDs here.
I lean to a presidential primary simply because those omama/bernie turnouts overwhelm caucuses. But I'd keep the existing caucuses because they do bring activists together and help staff the party.
Trying to figure out how eliminating caucuses would work in CO, while still preserving the "meet your neighbors" grassroots fun stuff.
1.Activists meet (but not "caucus") at the county level, pick their PCPs and state assembly delegates, promote their platform resolutions, make and listen to speeches,
2. Then we have a state assembly, with more who-ha and an opportunity for some of those down-ballot candidates to shine.
3. Then everyone ceremonially deposits their mail in ballots, if they haven't already dropped them off or mailed them in.
4.Ballots are then counted and scored by machine (supervised by a county election worker),along with those of every other registered voter who cared enough to vote in the primary.
A "unified ballot", as johnindenver proposes, including downballot races.
I like ballots for primaries because I think that there are fewer opportunities for hanky-panky and voter suppression (as long as mail-in ballots are the main method of voting, e.g., Colorado's system).
I purely love my state assembly. I'd want to keep that grassroots flavor, so the assemblies have to come before the voting. The voting of mail ballots should be through an open primary showing the will of Colorado voters, including unaffiliateds, Greens, Constitutionalists, whomever.
But assemblies should be limited to party members. If unaffiliateds choose to affiliate, they should be able to do that exactly once during the election season. I guess it could work.
Omama. Freudian slip?