Jed Is Running for State House

[singsingsing 109,954]

Generally I’m of the opinion that minor spelling/grammatical errors aren’t a big deal, but yeah, that’s bad. Real bad. Exactly what you want in a politician, a 20-year-old uneducated doofus with no grasp of grammar, who can’t even be arsed to proofread his tweets. I mean, I guess it’s working for their messiah The Donald, so... 🤷🏻‍♀️ Covfefe 

[PennySycamore 56,740]

29 minutes ago, ModestisHottest said:

I'm not sure how true what I'm about to say is because I'm not sure how much of a boost the Iowa winner gets but it really got me thinking.  Someone on TV (probably MSNBC let's be real) mentioned how since Iowa has very few people of color, the Iowa caucus boost is really giving a leg-up to white people's favorite candidate.  If a state like S. Carolina were first (where the Democratic electorate includes a lot more people of color) we'd be amplifying their voices instead.  So far, it does seem to be playing out this way since, according to the polling I've seen, both Sanders and Buttigeig are not attracting as much interest from people of color as other candidates.  This was just something I hadn't thought of and found to be an important thing to consider! 

I'm not sure how much black support Pete Buttigieg has in SC, but several of his ads do prominently feature blacks supporters in the state.  He's not who I'm supporting in the primary though; I'm All In for Warren!

[BernRul 6,619]

On 12/30/2019 at 7:22 PM, patsymae said:

I knew in the '80s that the US would lose its hegemony and much of its tenuous cohesion, but I thought It was going to happen more slowly--like the decline of the British Empire. Did not see this coming and not sure there is a remedy.

If it makes you feel better, the USA was never cohesive from it's founding. There's never been any hegemony. George Washington once said (to paraphrase a quote from Ron Chernow's book), "If ever a time comes that the North and South come to blows over the issue of slavery, than I side with the north." So even in the end of the 18th century, at the very beginning of the country, some people could already see the issue of slavery and differences would tear the country apart.

The early battles between the Federalists and Democratic Republicans was just as nasty and decisive as politics today.

In the 1820s election where John Quincy Adams beat Andrew Jackson, Jackson's supporters threatened to riot, believing the election was stolen and the system was rigged. 

The South threatened to leave the Union throughout the entire first half of the 19th century. Any time slavery was brought up between 1820-1860, the South made noise about seceding. That's one of the reasons why Northern politicians compromised so much.

Senators used to literally beat each other on the senate floor, like what happened to poor Charles Sumner. People called for the death of abolitionist senators. 

America has always been like this. This mess is nothing new. It has always been a country at war with itself, that somehow hasn't collapsed (yet). 

[GuineaPigCourtship 4,842]

Oddly enough, that does make me feel better.

[allthegoodnamesrgone 45,821]

As an Iowan I'm real sick of political pundits, reporters, and randoms saying, essentially, Iowa isn't worthy of 1st choice because they aren't American enough. Iowa is a very white state, but we are a pretty white fucking country. 72% of the US is white, that includes white Hispanics, like my father, the number goes down to 61% when you take out white Hispanics. 24 States have populations that are 80% or more white. An additional 6 states are 75% or more white. So these people can fuck right the fuck off, we ARE representative of  61% of the country, we pay taxes an as much as they don't want to admit it we do exist. 

I said the other day to some pundit if you want your state to have the 1st in the nation caucus/primary, go for it, after one presidential race you'll be begging IA & NH to take it back.  But honestly take it, for a few cycles it will be nice to get a break from constant politics. 

This doesn't have anything to do with any one here, just a political rant in general. 

And, I don't want anyone to think I'm dismissing minority voices, I'm not, just trying to point out that Iowa & New Hampshire do represent a good portion of the country, so we should have just as much right to a voice as any other state. 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by allthegoodnamesrgone

[grandmadugger 14,207]

5 hours ago, BernRul said:

 

Senators used to literally beat each other on the senate floor, like what happened to poor Charles Sumner. People called for the death of abolitionist senators. 

You know there’s a few I wouldn’t be upset if someone knocked the smug off of their face. 

[Anna Bolinas 2,770]

This country is so disparate that you could probably argue that no state adequately represents the entire country, but I think the problem with Iowa isn't that it's "not American" but that it hyper-privileges the voices of those who are already privileged. And for the Democrats especially, who owe much of their electoral success to black people, it's kind of ridiculous to have your first caucus/primary in states that have such a small black population. And even beyond that, the caucuses as a whole are messy and disorganized at the best of times, and a complete clusterfuck at the worst of times, so I think it needs reform on that basis as well. 

[The Mother Dust 2,962]

Are there polls available for Jed's race?  I did some googling and couldn't find any.  Too small/local of a race for polling?

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea 2,911]

On 2/7/2020 at 9:46 PM, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

As an Iowan I'm real sick of political pundits, reporters, and randoms saying, essentially, Iowa isn't worthy of 1st choice because they aren't American enough. Iowa is a very white state, but we are a pretty white fucking country. 72% of the US is white, that includes white Hispanics, like my father, the number goes down to 61% when you take out white Hispanics. 24 States have populations that are 80% or more white. An additional 6 states are 75% or more white. So these people can fuck right the fuck off, we ARE representative of  61% of the country, we pay taxes an as much as they don't want to admit it we do exist. 

I said the other day to some pundit if you want your state to have the 1st in the nation caucus/primary, go for it, after one presidential race you'll be begging IA & NH to take it back.  But honestly take it, for a few cycles it will be nice to get a break from constant politics. 

This doesn't have anything to do with any one here, just a political rant in general. 

And, I don't want anyone to think I'm dismissing minority voices, I'm not, just trying to point out that Iowa & New Hampshire do represent a good portion of the country, so we should have just as much right to a voice as any other state. 

 

It's interesting that people take this personally - Iowa has similar median age, income and religiosity to the US as a whole but yeah, is way off on race. So at least in one metric, it's overprivileging the already-privileged voices as someone smart said above.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464250335/the-perfect-state-index-if-iowa-n-h-are-too-white-to-go-first-then-who

The link above is quite fun - Illinois wins as most average state!

Why don't they just rotate the the states' primaries order? That would mix things up a bit! I guess it would take 50 election cycles for every state to go first, but it seems fair. And the punditry would be really fun. "This is an Arizona year so anything goes..."

[HerNameIsBuffy 123,295]

10 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

This country is so disparate that you could probably argue that no state adequately represents the entire country, but I think the problem with Iowa isn't that it's "not American" but that it hyper-privileges the voices of those who are already privileged. And for the Democrats especially, who owe much of their electoral success to black people, it's kind of ridiculous to have your first caucus/primary in states that have such a small black population. And even beyond that, the caucuses as a whole are messy and disorganized at the best of times, and a complete clusterfuck at the worst of times, so I think it needs reform on that basis as well. 

You said what I was thinking, but far better than I would have.  Thanks.

[Satan'sFortress 13,762]

What would be wrong with having all the primaries on one day> Or even two days? Then we wouldn't need the fuss of an Iowa or a New Hampshire.

[QuiverFullofBooks 24,370]

8 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

What would be wrong with having all the primaries on one day> Or even two days? Then we wouldn't need the fuss of an Iowa or a New Hampshire.

The long primary process narrows down the candidates. If we had the whole field going into a nationwide primary, we would probably need to have a runoff primary afterwards. Which would be fine with me.

[purple_summer 4,184]

6 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

The long primary process narrows down the candidates. If we had the whole field going into a nationwide primary, we would probably need to have a runoff primary afterwards. Which would be fine with me.

Ranked choice voting!!!

[allthegoodnamesrgone 45,821]

On 2/9/2020 at 10:22 PM, Anna Bolinas said:

This country is so disparate that you could probably argue that no state adequately represents the entire country, but I think the problem with Iowa isn't that it's "not American" but that it hyper-privileges the voices of those who are already privileged. And for the Democrats especially, who owe much of their electoral success to black people, it's kind of ridiculous to have your first caucus/primary in states that have such a small black population. And even beyond that, the caucuses as a whole are messy and disorganized at the best of times, and a complete clusterfuck at the worst of times, so I think it needs reform on that basis as well. 

I get what you are saying with the hyper privileged, but IMO it doesn't equate here, wait maybe it does considering all the people of color had to drop out BEFORE the caucus even happened. I think I was just looking at this as an attack on my state not the bigger issue of people of color getting less say. White privilege check, thank you for that perspective. 

I'm on Team Warren now, but I started out on Team Kamala, her's was the 1st campaign I'd ever volunteered for and I'm so bummed she had to drop out, I still love her feistiness  and a lot of what she stands for. No she's not perfect, no one is, but enjoyed working with her team and going to her rally's.  I was a lot more than bummed when there were rumors she was going to endorse Joe, I was hoping she would team up with Elizabeth I would LOVE a Warren/Harris ticket, personally. 

ITA caucuses need to go, they are outdated and impractical, and after suffering through 4 of them, they get more convoluted every cycle. 

[PennySycamore 56,740]

@allthegoodnamesrgone,  I hated it when first Kamala, then Beto, then Cory and finally Julian Castro dropped out (I think I got that order right).  We needed their voices in the primary field for far longer. Frankly what we don't need in the primary field is two billionaires trying to buy their way to the presidency.  Fuck off, Tom Steyer* and Mike Bloomberg!  I wish the two old white guys hadn't decided to run either. And Tulsi Gabbard, that DINO, needs to drop out as well.   We need younger blood and in this case, that includes Liz Warren.  

What might work for primaries is four or  maybe six regional primaries and then to rotate the order in which they occur.  

*Steyer has some good ideas, but some of them are just looney tunes like national referenda.  Also he has no political experience.  

[Eponine 1,670]

1 hour ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I think I was just looking at this as an attack on my state not the bigger issue of people of color getting less say.

Feeling like your state is being attacked and taking it so personally when the real issue is that PoC are being silenced is mind-boggling to me. Your state is not you, you are not your state, and you probably have as much in common with people in lots of other states as with the people in your state. If Iowa loses its first-position primary, what would the difference be to you? That you would feel like you have less of a say, or the same say that pretty much the entire rest of the country has?

When there is a system in place that gives such a big position of privilege and power to one group, there needs to be a really good, legitimate reason for it. I've yet to see any compelling argument that Iowa should stay in that position (or that any particular state should have it).

To paraphrase the often-repeated observation, when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. It seems to me like that's the feeling making Iowans so defensive at the moment.

[allthegoodnamesrgone 45,821]

@Eponine That is what I said.  Not sorry, not perfect, and occasionally need someone to give me a little nudge to get back on path. 

[Born Skeptic 664]

10 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

@allthegoodnamesrgone,  I hated it when first Kamala, then Beto, then Cory and finally Julian Castro dropped out (I think I got that order right).  We needed their voices in the primary field for far longer.

You do know that Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke is not a person of color?  Beto is 4th generation Irish American who acquired the nickname "Beto" as a child. It doesn't imply Latin American or Hispanic heritage.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Born Skeptic

[ModestisHottest 559]

13 hours ago, Born Skeptic said:

You do know that Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke is not a person of color?  Beto is 4th generation Irish American who acquired the nickname "Beto" as a child. It doesn't imply Latin American or Hispanic heritage.

This and also Yang is a PoC who has now dropped out.  Not saying you all are forgetting that but I feel like in general people/the media seem to.

[purple_summer 4,184]

On 2/11/2020 at 2:17 PM, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I would LOVE a Warren/Harris ticket, personally. 

I wouldn’t mind this, but a Warren/Castro ticket would make me ascend 

[cindyluvs24 5,259]

I hope Dems get out and vote even if their candidate of choice doesn't make the ticket.  So many Bernie people claimed they stayed home rather than vote for Hillary.  Well guess what?  The Republicans didn't.  I'm sure Romney's and Santorum's supporters managed to cast their votes and now look what we have.  And as wonderful as RBG is, she's probably not going to last another 4 years, which means He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named will have an opportunity to make the Court 6-3, not to mention appoint a few Federal judges as well.  (Interesting sidenote:  His sister is Maryanne Trump Barry, a retired Federal judge.  She got the brains in the family)

Now get out there and vote!!

Rant over.  We now return to our regularly scheduled program

[front hugs > duggs 11,787]

Kamala Harris needs to be an AG now that I really think about it.

[HerNameIsBuffy 123,295]

3 hours ago, front hugs > duggs said:

Kamala Harris needs to be an AG now that I really think about it.

She's the one who, had she not dropped out, I'd have had a very hard time voting for as I think she's potentially far more dangerous than Trump.  

As horrible as Trump is it's to our benefit that he's so stupid and and outward buffoon.  You have someone just as comfortable lying, just as out for herself, but attractive, smart, with social skills, and competence and they are way more dangerous.

[front hugs > duggs 11,787]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

She's the one who, had she not dropped out, I'd have had a very hard time voting for as I think she's potentially far more dangerous than Trump.  

As horrible as Trump is it's to our benefit that he's so stupid and and outward buffoon.  You have someone just as comfortable lying, just as out for herself, but attractive, smart, with social skills, and competence and they are way more dangerous.

Hmmm interesting perspective. I’ve never seen that side of her. Can I ask (politely, not in a challenging you type of way!) what you find to be dangerous about her ?

[church_of_dog 26,148]

9 minutes ago, front hugs > duggs said:

Hmmm interesting perspective. I’ve never seen that side of her. Can I ask (politely, not in a challenging you type of way!) what you find to be dangerous about her ?

I'd like to hear more about why you dislike her too, Buffy.   I can't say I know much about her politics but I had a vaguely positive impression of her.  And even though she dropped out of the race, she's still my Senator.  I don't feel especially well-represented by Feinstein, so I had some hopes for KH...