Campaign 2016

[Douchepool]

Apparently, some of his supporters are exceptionally hopeful. I wasn't surprised. New York is Hillary's turf. Her backyard. Her primary. Her win.

[the captain]

Everything I'd seen the past two weeks or so suggested exactly what happened for both parties would happen. No surprises here.

But I suppose fervent supporters are more hopeful and passionate.

[KDS]

Hillary takes New York. Bernie fans are distraught. I'm having another beer and enjoying the whinging from my #FeelTheBern friends (real life friends, that is).

Ha, that's pretty funny. 

[filledeplage]

Apparently, some of his supporters are exceptionally hopeful. I wasn't surprised. New York is Hillary's turf. Her backyard. Her primary. Her win.

TRBB - I think that NY is really Bernie's turf being a native. Bernie is in Vermont by way of NY.  He has not lost his NY accent. 

And, I suspect it was the NY political "machine" out in force. It was her first win in a while.  I think Bernie had 7 straight wins in other states. 

[KDS]

So, April 1st has already come and gone. 

At what point do Cruz, Trump, Clinton, and Sanders all collectively yell "GOTCHA!!!!" and give way to the real 2016 Presidential candidates? 

[SMiLE Brian]

Are you sure this thread doesn't have comped drinks?

[filledeplage]

So, April 1st has already come and gone. 

At what point do Cruz, Trump, Clinton, and Sanders all collectively yell "GOTCHA!!!!" and give way to the real 2016 Presidential candidates? 

KDS - do you mean at contested conventions for both parties?   

And, can see that happening, after all this consternation for at least a year. 

Both top vote getters, could be denied the nomination. 

[bluesno1fann]

Apparently, some of his supporters are exceptionally hopeful. I wasn't surprised. New York is Hillary's turf. Her backyard. Her primary. Her win.

TRBB - I think that NY is really Bernie's turf being a native. Bernie is in Vermont by way of NY.  He has not lost his NY accent. 

And, I suspect it was the NY political "machine" out in force. It was her first win in a while.  I think Bernie had 7 straight wins in other states. 

Precisely. Bernie was born and raised in New York. The result of the primary - though not unexpected - was a disgrace. Particularly since thousands of votes vanished inexplicably.

This is a very interesting article BTW: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/20/yes_bernie_sanders_is_not_a_democrat_and_hillary_represents_the_very_worst_of_the_party/

[Emily]

New York City is the big mass of the NY electorate and has a long record of not being nativist (and good for them; if anything's stupid, it's that).  They don't care who's from New York, they care who's worked in and for New York. Again, that is very well established. Hillary Clinton was always going to win New York. And delusions that it's because she cheated are delusions. Her win was proportional to poll numbers.
I think it's telling that some people always depict the not warm and fuzzy woman as being a corrupt monster in comparison with the other candidates. I can point out hypocrisies, lies and corruption for every one of the four (3? 5?) major candidates and some people will just focus on Hillary's as well as make them up when they aren't there. If someone's win matches the poll numbers and people start dancing around with accusations of cheating and working the machine, that's a clear sign that those people have completely lost objectivity.

[filledeplage]

New York City is the big mass of the NY electorate and has a long record of not being nativist (and good for them; if anything's stupid, it's that).  They don't care who's from New York, they care who's worked in and for New York. Again, that is very well established. Hillary Clinton was always going to win New York. And delusions that it's because she cheated are delusions. Her win was proportional to poll numbers.
I think it's telling that some people always depict the not warm and fuzzy woman as being a corrupt monster in comparison with the other candidates. I can point out hypocrisies, lies and corruption for every one of the four (3? 5?) major candidates and some people will just focus on Hillary's as well as make them up when they aren't there. If someone's win matches the poll numbers and people start dancing around with accusations of cheating and working the machine, that's a clear sign that those people have completely lost objectivity.

Emily - it was a "closed primary" - registered Independents were not allowed to vote.  Huge problem. The way primaries are conducted need to be made uniform among the 50 states.  Now that people are paying attention in this contentious election season, it could happen.  Some states voters have more rights than the others.  All ballots need to be counted including every absentee ballot.   

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/14/3769498/independent-voters-open-primaries-new-york/

Hope it copies.   

[Emily]

New York City is the big mass of the NY electorate and has a long record of not being nativist (and good for them; if anything's stupid, it's that).  They don't care who's from New York, they care who's worked in and for New York. Again, that is very well established. Hillary Clinton was always going to win New York. And delusions that it's because she cheated are delusions. Her win was proportional to poll numbers.
I think it's telling that some people always depict the not warm and fuzzy woman as being a corrupt monster in comparison with the other candidates. I can point out hypocrisies, lies and corruption for every one of the four (3? 5?) major candidates and some people will just focus on Hillary's as well as make them up when they aren't there. If someone's win matches the poll numbers and people start dancing around with accusations of cheating and working the machine, that's a clear sign that those people have completely lost objectivity.

Emily - it was a "closed primary" - registered Independents were not allowed to vote.  Huge problem. The way primaries are conducted need to be made uniform among the 50 states.  Now that people are paying attention in this contentious election season, it could happen.  Some states voters have more rights than the others.  All ballots need to be counted including every absentee ballot.  

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/14/3769498/independent-voters-open-primaries-new-york/

Hope it copies.  

How is that a problem? Why should a party have to allow non-partisans to determine their nominee?
And, why don't Bernie and his supporters complain about the very undemocratic caucuses?
Why don't people even try to make their arguments sound less specious?

[filledeplage]

New York City is the big mass of the NY electorate and has a long record of not being nativist (and good for them; if anything's stupid, it's that).  They don't care who's from New York, they care who's worked in and for New York. Again, that is very well established. Hillary Clinton was always going to win New York. And delusions that it's because she cheated are delusions. Her win was proportional to poll numbers.
I think it's telling that some people always depict the not warm and fuzzy woman as being a corrupt monster in comparison with the other candidates. I can point out hypocrisies, lies and corruption for every one of the four (3? 5?) major candidates and some people will just focus on Hillary's as well as make them up when they aren't there. If someone's win matches the poll numbers and people start dancing around with accusations of cheating and working the machine, that's a clear sign that those people have completely lost objectivity.

Emily - it was a "closed primary" - registered Independents were not allowed to vote.  Huge problem. The way primaries are conducted need to be made uniform among the 50 states.  Now that people are paying attention in this contentious election season, it could happen.  Some states voters have more rights than the others.  All ballots need to be counted including every absentee ballot.   

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/14/3769498/independent-voters-open-primaries-new-york/

Hope it copies.   

How is that a problem? Why should a party have to allow non-partisans to determine their nominee?

Emily - Problem is that US citizens who are registered to vote, but reserve the right to vote for whichever party they choose, were denied a fundamental right. 

Hope this one gains traction.  It is the right to vote, for the candidate, not the party affiliation which people have signed to, which should supersede. Hope this both challenged and  overturned.  In some states with closed primaries, people were allowed to "switch at the polls" and "switch back" after voting.  So it is an unequal application as among the states. 

[KDS]

After the whole mess in 2000, I find it hard to believe that voting can't be made uniform among all 50 States. 

[Emily]

New York City is the big mass of the NY electorate and has a long record of not being nativist (and good for them; if anything's stupid, it's that).  They don't care who's from New York, they care who's worked in and for New York. Again, that is very well established. Hillary Clinton was always going to win New York. And delusions that it's because she cheated are delusions. Her win was proportional to poll numbers.
I think it's telling that some people always depict the not warm and fuzzy woman as being a corrupt monster in comparison with the other candidates. I can point out hypocrisies, lies and corruption for every one of the four (3? 5?) major candidates and some people will just focus on Hillary's as well as make them up when they aren't there. If someone's win matches the poll numbers and people start dancing around with accusations of cheating and working the machine, that's a clear sign that those people have completely lost objectivity.

Emily - it was a "closed primary" - registered Independents were not allowed to vote.  Huge problem. The way primaries are conducted need to be made uniform among the 50 states.  Now that people are paying attention in this contentious election season, it could happen.  Some states voters have more rights than the others.  All ballots need to be counted including every absentee ballot.   

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/14/3769498/independent-voters-open-primaries-new-york/

Hope it copies.   

How is that a problem? Why should a party have to allow non-partisans to determine their nominee?

Emily - Problem is that US citizens who are registered to vote, but reserve the right to vote for whichever party they choose, were denied a fundamental right. 

Hope this one gains traction.  It is the right to vote, for the candidate, not the party affiliation which people have signed to, which should supersede. Hope this both challenged and  overturned.  In some states with closed primaries, people were allowed to "switch at the polls" and "switch back" after voting.  So it is an unequal application as among the states. 

There's no fundamental right to vote for a party's nominee. It's a fundamental right to vote for president. Not the same thing. What on earth is so hard for people to grasp about that? A political party IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION. It's a group of people who decided to work together to further their political goals. That group of people can form whatever rules they want, as long as they don't violate employment or tax laws or whatever, of course, and can choose whatever nominee they want. If I want to form a "Smiley Smile" party and allow only Andrew Hickey and OSD and Cam Mott to vote, then throw out their votes anyway and say the nominee is FilledePlage, I'm free to do so.

[filledeplage]

New York City is the big mass of the NY electorate and has a long record of not being nativist (and good for them; if anything's stupid, it's that).  They don't care who's from New York, they care who's worked in and for New York. Again, that is very well established. Hillary Clinton was always going to win New York. And delusions that it's because she cheated are delusions. Her win was proportional to poll numbers.
I think it's telling that some people always depict the not warm and fuzzy woman as being a corrupt monster in comparison with the other candidates. I can point out hypocrisies, lies and corruption for every one of the four (3? 5?) major candidates and some people will just focus on Hillary's as well as make them up when they aren't there. If someone's win matches the poll numbers and people start dancing around with accusations of cheating and working the machine, that's a clear sign that those people have completely lost objectivity.

Emily - it was a "closed primary" - registered Independents were not allowed to vote.  Huge problem. The way primaries are conducted need to be made uniform among the 50 states.  Now that people are paying attention in this contentious election season, it could happen.  Some states voters have more rights than the others.  All ballots need to be counted including every absentee ballot.   

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/14/3769498/independent-voters-open-primaries-new-york/

Hope it copies.   

How is that a problem? Why should a party have to allow non-partisans to determine their nominee?

Emily - Problem is that US citizens who are registered to vote, but reserve the right to vote for whichever party they choose, were denied a fundamental right. 

Hope this one gains traction.  It is the right to vote, for the candidate, not the party affiliation which people have signed to, which should supersede. Hope this both challenged and  overturned.  In some states with closed primaries, people were allowed to "switch at the polls" and "switch back" after voting.  So it is an unequal application as among the states. 

There's no fundamental right to vote for a party's nominee. It's a fundamental right to vote for president. Not the same thing. What on earth is so hard for people to grasp about that? A political party IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION. It's a group of people who decided to work together to further their political goals. That group of people can form whatever rules they want, as long as they don't violate employment or tax laws or whatever, of course, and can choose whatever nominee they want. If I want to form a "Smiley Smile" party and allow only Andrew Hickey and OSD and Cam Mott to vote, then throw out their votes anyway and say the nominee is FilledePlage, I'm free to do so.

Emily - while there are restrictions of reasonable time, place and manner for our fundamental US rights, if some states can and do allow for party-switching at the polling location entrances and exits, then, then it may be required that every state can do the same.  I believe it is a deprivation of a fundamental right and an unreasonable imposition of time, place and manner to require a party switch deadline.  I also believe it could be an Equal Protection issue, when similarly situated individuals (all US voters in the same class) being treated dissimilarly.   

But, I don't think it is a deprivation to have a "reasonable residency requirement" so that the voting rolls can catch up in the database for voting at the correct polling location.

Once you are on the voting rolls, switching between parties  "at the polls" should be permitted.  There needs to be uniformity in the ability to switch parties to vote off-party in every state. 

It reminds me of the "hanging chad" case from Bush v. Gore.  Paper punch-out ballots for some and ballots where you fill in a circle like the SAT's and deposit it in a voting ballot tabulating machine? The inequity among the states was appaling and publicly embarrassing for Florida. 

Excluding a whole class of voters (Registered Independents) in one state when other states do not exclude them, sets up the Equal Protection argument.

The issue has been raised.  And, if the impact of the difference is "disparate" then the strict scrutiny of the Court will be imposed and likely overturned.

[Emily]

Please let me know when you find the statute, clause, or decision that defines participating in a political party's nominating process as a fundamental right.


Please keep in mind that Bush v. Gore was a public election for governmental representation. A vote for a party nominee is not.
I'm actually getting a little freaked out that someone who works in the law doesn't understand the distinction.

[drbeachboy]

Emily, you are absolutely correct. Still, I don't like the nominating process of some states. Those processes are what determines who we are left with to vote for in the general election. This will most likely be the first time since I came of age in 1976 in which I have no candidate to vote for. I am profoundly sad and dismayed over this state of affairs.

[Emily]

I agree that both major parties are pretty unsatisfactory in a lot of ways, and both have very messed up internal processes and the outcomes are pretty awful.  One thing regarding the Democratic Party (I don't know about the Republican Party) is that it technically doesn't exist. Technically there's a Texas Democratic Party, a Rhode Island Democratic Party, etc. and they each make their own rules. There's a central organizing Democratic National Committee that is separate from the state Parties.
So, the coordination from state-to-state is limited.
It's certainly a frustrating time to be trying to participate as a citizen!

[alf wiedersehen]

What on earth is so hard for people to grasp about that? A political party IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.

When I registered to vote at the DMV, I was presented with three options: Democrat, Republican, or independent. I think the way the parties are presented to the American people make it an incredibly fuzzy topic for most.

[Emily]

I understand the general confusion, but it's been discussed ad nauseum in a few threads here, so if one was participating in those threads or trained in the law it's hard to understand, for me, why it's not sinking in.

[filledeplage]

Please let me know when you find the statute, clause, or decision that defines participating in a political party's nominating process as a fundamental right.


Please keep in mind that Bush v. Gore was a public election for governmental representation. A vote for a party nominee is not.
I'm actually getting a little freaked out that someone who works in the law doesn't understand the distinction.

Emily - when various states conduct elections in different manners there is a disparity in outcome.  Open primary where you can vote as you please and closed where you cannot.

In Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208, (1986) a Connecticut case, an "associational" context was used.  It went to the Supreme Court. 

"A Connecticut statute (9-431) enacted in 1955 requires voters in any political party prima to be registered members of that party.  In 1984, appellee Republican Party of Connecticut (Party ) adopted a Party rule that permits undefended voters - registered voters not affiliated with any party - to vote in Republican parties for federal and statewide offices.  The Party and the Party's federal officeholders and sate chairman (also appellees) brought an action in Federal District court challenging the constitutionality of 9-431 on the ground that it deprives the Party of its right under the first and Fourteenth amendments to enter into political association with individuals of its own choosing, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court granted summary judgment in appellees' favor, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

1. Section 9-431 impermissibly burdens the right of the party and its members protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  ..."

The disparate standards of each state are being challenged. 


Bush v. Gore 531 U. S. 98 (2000) The Court rule that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.

And the discussion and the raising of awareness of the disparate system for presidential primaries is front and center.  Bernie Sanders is not happy with the fact that Independent voters were precluded from voting yesterday.  When there is no uniformity of elections for all 50 states, the result cannot be a just one.  When one state has an "open primary" allowing Independent voters the ability to vote and a "closed primary" state prohibits it because they are afraid their party will be "raided" of voters, with the media attention focused upon it, when people generally don't have the awareness that they are excluded, from a voting right, because it only occurs one time in four years, and not a annual regular local election it becomes a problem of education. 

In order to vote in the primary in New York, they would have needed to change their party affiliation on October 9, 2015. That was more than 6 months ago and hardly a just result. And, in some states, you can change at the polls, without a 6 month wait.  The laws are excluding Independent voters and they will have their say.  There is general mistrust for both parties.  Not everyone wants to be categorized as a Democrat or Republican.   

[Emily]

So you have supported my point: the court found that political parties have constitutional rights under TWO amendments, one being in the bill of rights, to associate as they choose, which means to determine their own memberships.

You are trying to deny people a fundamental right: that of association.

Again, Bush v Gore is a public election and again, I have to hope that, as someone trained in the law, you understand the concept of fundamental rights and the distinction between a public election for governmental representation and a private association of citizens to pursue their political interests and goals.

People are welcome to not be Democrats or Republicans. I am not now a member of either party. But that doesn't preclude the parties from choosing their nominees as they wish.

[filledeplage]

So you have supported my point: the court found that political parties have constitutional rights under TWO amendments, one being in the bill of rights, to associate as they choose, which means to determine their own memberships.

You are trying to deny people a fundamental right: that of association.

Again, Bush v Gore is a public election and again, I have to hope that, as someone trained in the law, you understand the concept of fundamental rights and the distinction between a public election for governmental representation and a private association of citizens to pursue their political interests and goals.

People are welcome to not be Democrats or Republicans. I am not now a member of either party. But that doesn't preclude the parties from choosing their nominees as they wish.

Emily - absolutely not.  The closed primary system needs to be eliminated.  Yes, they determine memberships but in the open primary you do not have to declare your affiliation and be given a ballot of the party you are affiliated with.  In the final election you can vote the person.

In the primary, you have to vote for those on the party ballot. 

Bush v. Gore is public (final) election with the problem being voting irregularities in the type of ballots. Reading the case is helpful. It is the general (final election) The Primary elections are inconsistent. 

And, I certainly understand the fundamental rights of voting, travel, religion association.  I was clear that there are sub-categories of time, place and manner to qualify those rights and many cases are not decided on the former rights but the secondary factors to evaluate whether you can use your free speech anywhere you want.  You cannot.

There are rights that are fundamental but not absolute but subject to time, place and manner. That is the second prong of the analysis.   

Even religious freedom has limits of practice.  Yes, you have free exercise of religion under prong 1. But, under prong 2, you can't have human sacrifice and call it religious belief, because murder of a human, is a crime in the US. That is the time, place and manner prong. There are limits.

In New York, you could not vote as an independent (for either party) unless you changed your affiliation 6 months ago.  That needs to change.   

Tashjian was about the Republican Party's rights and not "individual" fundamental rights. It means that the Rep. party could let "independents" (individual people) participate in its primary despite a Connecticut statue restricting voting to registered party members.  It is association of the group and not the person. 
 

[Emily]

FdP, I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the law and our governmental structure and processes in this matter.

[filledeplage]

FdP, I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the law and our governmental structure and processes in this matter.

Emily - no apologies necessary. That is false.

We'll leave it at that.