Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
It's cute that he thinks there will be an election in 2028, or ever again, for that matter.
Bold of him to assume there will be elections in 2028.
Governor Walz, we need you protecting Minnesota as you have been. While you possibly being president would be the boost of democracy this country needs, my opinion is that you hold the fort exactly where you are.
He was the better half of the ticket.
I'm worried that despite having very good views himself that he is going to be tainted by the past. Not without reason too, because the consultants made him stand down with the "weird" insult and progressive messaging. Like most of these people, if it's not their authentic campaign, then whose is it? He's demonstrated, like most people who reach a moment in their career to seriously consider this, that he's too malleable for populist politics. It's possible that he completely sheds that team and runs his own, but who here really thinks that's going to happen? I'd believe it if we had AOC for VP. The pressure to succumb to inferior messaging is higher than it'll ever be during a presidential campaign, I don't really trust anyone to stay firm except AOC, Talib, and Bernie because they have demonstrated resistance in this sort of high pressure consultant environment.
So are we going to vote for the lesser evil genocide supporter even in 2028
Give me AOC or Bernie.
Bernie's going to be almost 90 years old by then
I like adding AOC to the ticket. But getting through primaries may pit them against each other; their bases, at least.
I think it would actually be very easy to unite their bases. At a certain point we're going to have to acknowledge that progressive populism is appealing to every demographic apart from evangelicals, xenophobes, and 3%ers. Midwesterners who like Walz may be more religious and worse LGBTQ+ allies, but fundamentally people want someone who is going to even the playing field for workers and that's something that both groups would appreciate. A large amount of any campaign is going to have to be education about the benefits of unions, public projects, and being a member of your community rather than a shut-in if they want to generate positive buzz. Negative buzz is easy, just call the fascists weak and gross.
Bernie should not run again. He's great but we need some young blood.
That's what the primaries are for. Selecting a candidate for your party to proceed with. The general election should set aside that division with the candidate having been chosen for the party already.
The problem is, primaries are really good at selecting the worst candidate.
See, the problem comes from something called candidate cloning.
See, you might get more than 50% of the population supporting Tim Walz, or AOC.
But when you force the people to choose between the two, well, now you have less than 50%.
Add in a few more candidates with reasonable platforms and you can get the average support down to less than 10%.
Then all you have to do is add in a candidate with a markedly different platform and 15% support can make them the winner of the primary.
Ranked Choice cannot fix this problem, regardless of the claims made by proponents.
The voting system that can fix things is Approval.
Under Approval, you can vote for A, B, and C. The winner is the person with the highest overall approval.
Yeah, what we need is ranked choice same day primaries. Unfortunately that's something that might land them the presidency so the democrats would never do it
Ranked Choice is a deeply flawed system.
Approval is far better, or if you like to be granular in your voting STAR.
Flawed in what way?
I was going to type up a bunch here, but instead I'll share some links.
First is this section of this wiki.
2009 Burlington Mayoral Race. The wrong guy won.
The Monotonicity issue is unique to Ranked Choice, and is pretty fucking bad.
These people have a good breakdown as well.
Then there was the fun incident in Alameda County.
Finally, the guy who invented the system threw it out as deeply flawed. Mostly because it doesn't find the Pairwise winner, i.e. the candidate who can win in a one on one election vs every other candidate. Also called the Condorcet winner.
As a side note, Nicolas de Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet, was fucking based.
I'd vote for him but he'd need to ignore the consultants next time if he wants any hope of winning.
Personally, I'm hoping Zelensky will run for US president after strong Dien in Ukraine. You might be thinking that someone from another country can't be president. Well.... looks at current situation in White House At least this one would be elected.
Can you please just fucking not
We need someone who is actually going to make some changes, not another return to a milque toast centre right 70 year old white dude
Except, before the DNC reeled him in with kamala's campaign, he regularly had excellent policy and progressive stances that would shake the middlest of middle right Dems. Things like free school lunches and gender affirming care and reproductive health care protections from the federal government. I would take him over Kamala any day to be quite honest.