| Author |
|
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1246
|
| Posted: 17 September 2024 at 8:08pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
But because the GOP can't put anything forward without being completely hypocritical, almost all of the celebrity-turned-politicians of note have been in the GOP. Trump, obviously only has his created TV and media image to give him any credibility; but Reagan was the goddamn President of the Screen Actors' Guild - twice! (and a goddamn UNION, to boot).____________________
And not only was Reagan a Democrat-turned-Republican, but Trump also had a very fluid allegiance to party membership, and was very tight with the Democratic leadership prior to jumping to the right.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Kopperman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3344
|
| Posted: 17 September 2024 at 8:45pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
To be fair, back when Reagan made the party switch both parties had people across the spectrum from left to right. So he wasn't abandoning his principles to appeal to an electoral base as much as gradually evolving along with his ultimate political home.
Trump, on the other hand, is whatever the pejorative masculine of a Flibbertigibbet would be. Maybe it's 'fat amoral racist opportunistic lying asshole?'
Edited by Dave Kopperman on 17 September 2024 at 8:49pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Dave Kopperman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3344
|
| Posted: 17 September 2024 at 9:10pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
Maybe it's just 'flabbythegabby'
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4620
|
| Posted: 18 September 2024 at 12:27am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Dave Kopperman wrote:
| It ends up being a ten-month slog - exhausting, endlessly combative, and counter-productive to building a functional and cohesive party platform. |
|
|
Yep. In retrospect, it almost seems like a stroke of genius for Biden to wait and withdraw at the last minute. If he'd announced he wasn't running for re-election a year ago, we would have had a dozen people running for the Democratic nomination, and a combative primary in which they would take each other apart. It's unlikely a strong consensus favorite would have emerged, and whoever ended up with the majority of delegates likely would have faced strong resentment from fans of the second and third-place finishers, who would be threatening to bolt to third party candidates or even Trump (a la all the Bernie Bros of 2016).
But with Biden's late withdrawal, everyone realized it was too late to argue and instead immediately coalesced around Biden's choice of Harris, resulting in a unified party strongly focused on the goal. Makes one wonder if Biden is secretly a mastermind who pretends to be a dotard, just like this old SNL sketch about Reagan.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3091
|
| Posted: 18 September 2024 at 1:40am | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Jason Czeskleba wrote:
| In retrospect, it almost seems like a stroke of genius for Biden to wait and withdraw at the last minute. |
|
|
I hate to mistake stupidity for genius, but a master plan couldn't have played out much more masterfully than what actually transpired.
Harris would have likely won the nomination in a contested primary, but with all the accompanying baggage you noted. The way Biden endorsed Harris felt like a relief.
My sense is that Biden planned on being president through 2029 and events truly did unfold by accident. I don't buy a master plan so masterful its execution looks like everyone fell ass backwards into success. Plus a Harris campaign would hopefully have been much more up to speed and ready to hit the ground running, which it wasn't, and is still catching up in many ways.
Unless that's part of the plan, too.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4620
|
| Posted: 18 September 2024 at 2:04am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Yeah, I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a master plan. But it's worked out so well it could have been one.
I'm not so sure Harris would have won a contested primary. It would be a bad look to pass over a black woman (and would have pissed off a lot of people). But there certainly would have been a lot of voters who would have wanted a "safer" (ie, white and/or male) candidate, and many other voters who would have wanted a progressive candidate. She wouldn't have been the first choice of either of those groups. Regardless, it would have been messy and left whoever won struggling to rebuild a coalition of voters.
Harris has proven to be a much stronger general election candidate than people expected. Which goes to show she is probably better at running against a Republican than running against fellow Democrats. Which does suggest the nomination process is flawed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3091
|
| Posted: 18 September 2024 at 2:35am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
My sense of Harris's counterfactual inevitability in the Earth 5 Democratic primaries is based in part on George Bush's similar 1988 journey from clownish nonentity to presidential nominee. She would have always surprised observers with the strength in retail politics she developed serving as VP.
It's hard for me to think of a credible Democratic alternative who would also have been interested in running against Harris. Maybe someone would have emerged if Biden didn't endorse immediately, but 2020 contenders like Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren would have been Team Kamala, and so too fantasy pick Gavin Newsom. The insurgent Democrat campaigns from Robert Kennedy and that other guy would have played out identically.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5678
|
| Posted: 18 September 2024 at 1:10pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
The nomination process is broken. Anything that ends up with fringe candidates like Trump winning a nomination is messed up. We need blanket primaries with ranked choice voting to get a choice of candidates that represent America and not the more and more extreme fringe. And yes, the Democrats have poor leadership, whereas the Republicans have virtually none...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8116
|
| Posted: 18 September 2024 at 4:11pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
One desperately-needed fix on the Primary system is to hold them all on the same day. Too many times, a candidate I might have considered had been weeded out by prior poor results in a state that very likely didn't hold my views to begin with (or just flat out ran out of steam and money during the extended process). With the wider playing field, I guess we would need ranked choice voting as Steven suggests, and I would be open to that.
Edited by Vinny Valenti on 18 September 2024 at 4:12pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8940
|
| Posted: 19 September 2024 at 9:55am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
One desperately-needed fix on the Primary system is to hold them all on the same day.
*************************************
It would be impossible to hold the primaries all in one day! Just one day to vote? That's impossible....
Oh wait.
Seriously, this is the way.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |