[Icarus]

Originally posted by hooky

Also, just curious on what everyone thinks we should do with primaries: http://www.strawpoll.me/10242847

All closed. The party should decide who leads the party

[BlueTimberwolf]

OMG Hillary stans. She did everything but formally announce she was running and took the money. She should have stopped giving speech the day she hired her first staff member. It's not like she needed the money she has like 6 multi million dollar homes

[Giselle]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

OMG Hillary stans. She did everything but formally announce she was running and took the money. She should have stopped giving speech the day she hired her first staff member. It's not like she needed the money she has like 6 multi million dollar homes

She can't speak at places? She didn't even speak at the "big bad BIG BANKS!!!" again, a women's tech conference, eBay and a camping non-profit were the only places she spoke at in America in 2015.

[vuelve88]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Bernie's contribution scandal is really that much of a scandal. He has millions of small contributors and he missed returning like 200 faulty ones

Wait? So Bernie legitimately breaks a rule 200+ times and it's not "much of a scandal," but Hillary's speaking engagements given completely within the rules are a conspiracy?

[Bloo]

Hillary is 123 delegates away from the overall majority assuming supers don't change.

[Retro]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

OMG Hillary stans. She did everything but formally announce she was running and took the money. She should have stopped giving speech the day she hired her first staff member. It's not like she needed the money she has like 6 multi million dollar homes

Nope, not unless it says specifically in that person's contract "HEY THERE YOU'RE GONNA WORK ON MY CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT!" In bold. In sparkly red and blue letters. If that wasn't announced, she can speak to who she wants for whatever money she wants!

Also, she has two multi-million dollar homes not counting the White House, thank you very much.

[Benzene]

This election has shown that Dems are too accomodating. Should've dispatched of this fossilized cretin earlier. Never again should they allow an independent to run on their dime.

[cherylcole]

Originally posted by hooky

Also, just curious on what everyone thinks we should do with primaries: http://www.strawpoll.me/10242847

All closed. I think you should be able to change party affiliation at least like a month before the primary though.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by hooky

Also, just curious on what everyone thinks we should do with primaries: http://www.strawpoll.me/10242847

Did you make this? I'll do it now

[Benzene]

I couldn't give a good goddamn about Hillary's speeches.

[hooky]

Originally posted by IcarusIsFlying

All closed. The party should decide who leads the party

If the parties actually represented the public, then I would be fine with this. However, they don't. We need more than 2 parties for people's views to be reasonably represented. However, I don't think people belonging to a party should be allowed to vote in another party's primary.

I misvoted on that poll, I chose open without thinking Also I decided to add more options, so here's a new poll: http://www.strawpoll.me/10242893

[Retro]

Originally posted by hooky

If the parties actually represented the public, then I would be fine with this. However, they don't. We need more than 2 parties for people's views to be reasonably represented. However, I don't think people belonging to a party should be allowed to vote in another party's primary.

I misvoted on that poll, I chose open without thinking Also I decided to add more options, so here's a new poll: http://www.strawpoll.me/10242893

I'll vote on this one! Super comprehensive.

I'm torn because I LOVED the Iowa caucus and can't wait to experience it again in 4/8 years. But ideologically caucuses are problematic.

I'll go with Option 2, but I think we should also have caucuses for the hell of it or for the sake of tradition.

[hooky]

Originally posted by Benzene

I couldn't give a good goddamn about Hillary's speeches.

I (mostly) agree. While it would be nice to see the transcripts, the issue is way overblown.

[hooky]

Originally posted by Retro

I'll vote on this one! Super comprehensive.

I'm torn because I LOVED the Iowa caucus and can't wait to experience it again in 4/8 years. But ideologically caucuses are problematic.

I'll go with Option 2, but I think we should also have caucuses for the hell of it or for the sake of tradition.

Maybe we could have caucuses to narrow down the field. Maybe instead of primaries we could have caucuses on the days the primaries would be in their states, and then have a national primary with the top two candidates.

[Benzene]

Originally posted by Benzene

This election has shown that Dems are too accomodating. Should've dispatched of this fossilized cretin earlier. Never again should they allow an independent to run on their dime.

Of all my posts here, I'm surprised this is the one that got warned.

[RatedG²]

Mix of caucuses and primaries, all semi closed!

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by Ryan

And? She didn't do them once she formally announced.

Jeb Bush went around for a year with an "exploring committee" in order to help his PAC raise money before he declared. The moment he did he ceased.

Bernie cannot do speeches like that bc he's a sitting elected official. Period.

Giving speeches to encourage super-pac donation and giving speeches to boost your own bank account are two different things,

[Retro]

Originally posted by hooky

Maybe we could have caucuses to narrow down the field. Maybe instead of primaries we could have caucuses on the days the primaries would be in their states, and then have a national primary with the top two candidates.

I feel unsure about this idea. On one hand, a primary season that's spread out allows more time for a candidate or idea to gain traction. On the other hand, it can be damaging and stressful.

I'm not sure yet about an absolute solution, but I do kind of like the idea of a national semi-closed primary - maybe one in like May the year of election, so that campaigns still have time to take place and then the party can coalesce behind someone with little frustration or argument such as we've seen about superdelegates.

[hooky]

Originally posted by Retro

I feel unsure about this idea. On one hand, a primary season that's spread out allows more time for a candidate or idea to gain traction. On the other hand, it can be damaging and stressful.

I'm not sure yet about an absolute solution, but I do kind of like the idea of a national semi-closed primary - maybe one in like May the year of election, so that campaigns still have time to take place and then the party can coalesce behind someone with little frustration or argument such as we've seen about superdelegates.

I would go with mid- to late-May as colleges tend to have finals anywhere from early- to mid-May.

[rihannabiggestfan]

She "won" Kentucky, but King Bernie got the same number of delegates.