2020 Elections

[secundem_artem]

These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.

I suspect some of those voting patterns had to do with the fact that Hillary was expected to beat Cheeto Jesus like a rented mule.  I followed the polls in the run up to the election and Hillary was tipped to win big.  It seemed safe enough to cast a protest vote to send a message to the DNC.  Turns out it was not and people apparently lie to pollsters about what they are planning to do.  Who knew??

[Anselm]

I heard similar things said about Nader in 2000 and 2004 as is being said about Stein in 2016.  Keep in mind that the GOP also has competition for their votes from the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, write in votes, not voting or switching to the Democratic Party.    The fact that a 3rd party can change an election outcome is precisely where their power lies and why no one is wasting their vote.  You force the two major parties to earn your vote.  I don't remember the Democrats doing a single thing to reach out to Nader and his supporters other than whine.  And yes, the DNC did screw Bernie over in several ways, most especially with the superdelegates.   Why have a primary when you really want a coronation?

[backatit]

These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.

I suspect some of those voting patterns had to do with the fact that Hillary was expected to beat Cheeto Jesus like a rented mule.  I followed the polls in the run up to the election and Hillary was tipped to win big.  It seemed safe enough to cast a protest vote to send a message to the DNC.  Turns out it was not and people apparently lie to pollsters about what they are planning to do.  Who knew??

I have a really jaded view of Bernie supporters which is wholly unfairly based on an ex-wife of a good friend of mine. She is an avid Bernie supporter who calls Hillary "Killary," and is now calling Buttigeg "Pete the Cheat" and refusing to vote for him (good gracious am I glad she's an ex, but she is a member of our local horse club so I'm forced to be socially polite to her although it's straining me to the limit these days). She's equally vehement in her hatred of the Wotsit currently in charge, but that doesn't seem to matter as much to her. I really hope she's not representative - I think she's just an example of the worst sort of "Bernie Bro" that makes good copy, much like the people who attend Trump rallies.

[spork]

Iowa caucus has been a sham for decades: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/iowa-democratic-caucuses.html.

[Parasaurolophus]

No.  As I understand the caucus system, at the start of the evening everyone gathers. Then they start by saying, "everyone for Bob go to that corner, and everyone for Ellen go to that corner, eveyone for Ted over there...."  They know how many are in the room as they had to check in upon arrival. If the smallest groups are less than 15% of the number in the room, those candidates are not viable.  Those standing in the corners for nonviable candidates are courted by the bigger crowds and people shuffle about.  Only at the end do they need to count the people standing in the corners for the final, viable candidates. 

This time, the DNC or whoever, wanted to know, as I understand it, how many were in each corner initially, and ideally, where the people from the nonviable candidates went. 

SO if Ted is deemed nonviable, they wanted to know that 40% of his supporters went to Bob, while 59% became Ellen Supporters and 1% went home. 
In the past, only the final count, and not the details of how many went where were collected.  No counts of the initial conditions were created.

There are other states the caucus.  IF you have experience, please explain the process, especially IF I misunderstand the process.

That's a great explanation, and I don't mean to be a stubborn contrarian and take away from it, but... you still have to do some counting. You need to know how many people showed up total to figure out what 15% of that is, and unless someone has a huge blowout or a catastrophic failure, you can't just eyeball the number of their supporters standing in their corner.

I can see, however, that officials wouldn't need to keep track of that count for reporting purposes. It just seems silly not to, once you're already in the business of ascertaining whether thresholds are satisfied. And it hardly seems like much of an added burden, much less a complication!

My original question was actually less granular....is there a danger that if the polls suggest an upcoming loss for Trump he could find a way to cancel the elections entirely?

I don't think his paranoid megalomania, enabled by his rabid fan base, is incapable of it, given what we've just seen in the peremptory firing of those who testified against him...he wouldn't even listen to those who suggested it was a bad idea, and I think he's now more dangerous than ever.

M.

I don't think this should be a real worry, nor do I see any evidence of it. What I do think you should worry about is elections 10, 15, 20 years down the road. There's been a significant erosion of democratic norms over the last twelve years, and you can expect it to continue. In particular, I suspect that presidential term limits will go to the chopping block soon--possibly if Trump wins again (although he's old and unhealthy and unlikely to be alive or well enough to take advantage), more likely under the next Republican or two, if they're popular enough. Another Trump term seems likely to see the end of impeachment, however.

That leave Bloomberg--at least he has experience and isn't financially beholden--Biden--whose pull in various quarters can't be dismissed, yet (although it's weakening, and the "white Obama" thing is weird, I agree, as well as worrying)--and Clinton, if she suddenly declares, which might yet be possible. (Could Michelle run? THAT I'd like to see!)

Bloomberg might just make it through Super Tuesday to a brokered convention, at which point his chances go up significantly. I think he's a recipe for an electoral trouncing, though.

For one thing, policy-wise he's going to alienate a lot of Democrats--not least because he's actually a Republican (until about a year ago, when he decided he wanted to run). Similarly, if he gets to the ticket via a brokered convention (and the party elite weighing in) rather than by dominating primaries, I can guarantee that the left will largely stay home. If it's down to Bernie vs. Bloomberg and the party decides Bloomberg while the people decide Bernie, the people will not show up for Bloomberg. And even if he can win over some Republicans (which I doubt), he can't win over that many. Just as importantly, however, he's got a lot of baggage in his past, and it will be trivially easy for Trump and the Republicans to make him look bad. (Note: that link is to a hit piece. That said, the things it says about Bloomberg are all true and well-documented.)

In 2016 I thought Sanders was just a slightly more liberal version of Trump. Both loudmouths with a lot to say, surprisingly similar things to say in many areas, but for some reason getting attention. Guess it was more entertaining than the experienced woman in the room with real solutions.

Now I see the two lightest weight, biggest blowhards in the D primary (Sanders, Buttigieg) sucking up all the oxygen while the experienced women (Warren, Klobuchar) get left behind.

The UK has a similar situation to Trump vs Sanders - Johnson vs Corbyn.

There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin. So I won't, except to say that Sanders is a lot more liberal than Trump, has an infinitely better and more morally-upstanding character, and is proposing perfectly substantive plans (rather than Buttigieg's empty platitudes). I'm sorry/not sorry, but if you think otherwise you're deluding yourself, and should lay off the pundit kool-aid.

You don't have to like him or his policies, and you're absolutely free to think that other candidates have better or more substantive policies. But come on.

One of the best things they could do to appeal to mainstream voters is to stop using the term "socialism" so glibly. Many of the policies the left likes in other countries are in places where they have never elected a "socialist" government. Many (most?) communist governements call/called themselves "socialist" to sound less authoritariian. The point is, even for people who are fairly centrist or slightly left-leaning, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons that "socialism" is not a desirable alternative to the status quo.

This is largely a response to being tarred with the "socialist" or "communist" brush. Democratic socialism is a real thing, including in our country, and it has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Besides which, the key policies of social democrats in the US (e.g. universal healthcare) would only serve to bring the country in line with the rest of the world, including countries with very strong conservative governments.

It's about electability, and exact fitness for the office. We really only get one shot at this.

It has to be absolutely right.

Electability is not something we can eyeball, or that we should trust pundits or party machinery to tell us about. Luckily, we don't have to: we can look to the primaries, and we can look to rigorous polling data.

More importantly, however, I think your sentiment above is misplaced. It's true that you'll only get one shot at this, but the 'this' is not 'replacing Donald Trump'. Even if he wins, he will be replaced in 2024. But who and what you replace him with matters. You really do only have one shot at dealing with catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, and that window is now. You have one more shot this generation to provide adequate healthcare to the entire population (thereby remedying a huge source of income inequality and a serious contributing factor to racist racial disparities). You have one last shot to actively shore up your democratic institutions (simply having someone in power who doesn't ruffle too many institutional feathers won't cut the mustard when the next demagogue gets into office), and that shot is now.

Replacing Trump with someone who doesn't make headlines every day will make you feel better about things, but it won't actually make things any better. If you don't push for substantive change now, I don't think you'll get another shot at it for a couple generations.

Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....

Again, I think this is the wrong way to think about it. No politician should be able to take your vote for granted. That's what allows them to stop representing your interests. Clinton took masses of voters for granted in key states, which she then lost. And that's entirely on her.

I agree that voting for Jill Stein or writing in a candidate is a bad idea. But voters do that because the main candidates have not earned their votes, and that's a campaigning politician's job. Blaming Jill Stein voters is just offloading responsibility from Clinton and her campaign, from James Comey and his interference, etc. And that's bullshit. That election was so close (despite her crushing popular vote win) that any number of factors could have made the difference.

There were also a lot of people who convinced themselves that Clinton and the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, so at that point a vote for Clinton validated, even rewarded the stealing.

Sanders also sounded a lot like Trump, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Obama-to-Trump switchers were one-time Sanders voters. Sanders and Trump were very much about restricting imports and immigrants, while Clinton was a (shudder) globalist.

Some Sanders voters went for Trump, yes. Though not an enormous number of them, and it's perfectly in keeping with the number of other primary candidates' supporters who defect to the other party in the general (indeed, more Clinton 2008 voters defected to McCain than Sanders supporters defected to Trump). More Sanders supporters stayed home. But the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton (something like 85%-90% of them).

Moreover, if you believe that a significant number of Sanders supporters voted Trump over Clinton, that should be an indication that Sanders has significant Republican appeal, which is the whole (mistaken, IMO!) reason everybody wants a moderate in the first place.

And let's be honest: Sanders campaigned hard for Clinton, and exhorted his voters to support her. In fact, Clinton's campaign asked him to campaign less hard on her behalf.

[writingprof]

Sanders campaigned hard for Clinton, and exhorted his voters to support her. In fact, Clinton's campaign asked him to campaign less hard on her behalf.

Is this true? If so, she really is a bad politician.

[marshwiggle]

One of the best things they could do to appeal to mainstream voters is to stop using the term "socialism" so glibly. Many of the policies the left likes in other countries are in places where they have never elected a "socialist" government. Many (most?) communist governements call/called themselves "socialist" to sound less authoritariian. The point is, even for people who are fairly centrist or slightly left-leaning, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons that "socialism" is not a desirable alternative to the status quo.

This is largely a response to being tarred with the "socialist" or "communist" brush. Democratic socialism is a real thing, including in our country, and it has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Besides which, the key policies of social democrats in the US (e.g. universal healthcare) would only serve to bring the country in line with the rest of the world, including countries with very strong conservative governments.

This is the point. Social democratic governments rarely call themselves "socialist", and anyone who lived through much of the previous century (or studied it) knows why. Simply telling voters "Don't worry, when we say 'socialism' we mean something kinder and gentler than those 'other' versions" isn't likely to work, and for good reason.  Being clear about what limits on government control there should be in a social democratic government would be a good way to address the concerns of mainstream voters.

Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....

Again, I think this is the wrong way to think about it. No politician should be able to take your vote for granted. That's what allows them to stop representing your interests. Clinton took masses of voters for granted in key states, which she then lost. And that's entirely on her.

I agree that voting for Jill Stein or writing in a candidate is a bad idea. But voters do that because the main candidates have not earned their votes, and that's a campaigning politician's job. Blaming Jill Stein voters is just offloading responsibility from Clinton and her campaign, from James Comey and his interference, etc. And that's bullshit. That election was so close (despite her crushing popular vote win) that any number of factors could have made the difference.

I absolutely agree on this.

[clean]

and I don't mean to be a stubborn contrarian and take away from it, but... you still have to do some counting. You need to know how many people showed up total to figure out what 15% of that is, and unless someone has a huge blowout or a catastrophic failure, you can't just eyeball the number of their supporters standing in their corner.

No.  As I understand the caucus system, at the start of the evening everyone gathers. Then they start by saying, "everyone for Bob go to that corner, and everyone for Ellen go to that corner, eveyone for Ted over there...."  They know how many are in the room as they had to check in upon arrival. If the smallest groups are less than 15% of the number in the room, those candidates are not viable.  Those standing in the corners for nonviable candidates are courted by the bigger crowds and people shuffle about.  Only at the end do they need to count the people standing in the corners for the final, viable candidates.

r a catastrophic failure, you can't just eyeball the number of their

The catastrophic failures are easy, and probably not uncommon.  Someone in charge calls 'time' and that round is over and any group with less than 15%.... these are not necessarily large crowds, either.  IF there are 100 checking in, and one group has < 15 ("catastrophic failure") then those people need to find a new home with another group. 
From the videos I saw, these events are not the Fill the stadium size crowds. 

[ciao_yall]

Again, I think this is the wrong way to think about it. No politician should be able to take your vote for granted. That's what allows them to stop representing your interests. Clinton took masses of voters for granted in key states, which she then lost. And that's entirely on her.

I agree that voting for Jill Stein or writing in a candidate is a bad idea. But voters do that because the main candidates have not earned their votes, and that's a campaigning politician's job. Blaming Jill Stein voters is just offloading responsibility from Clinton and her campaign, from James Comey and his interference, etc. And that's bullshit. That election was so close (despite her crushing popular vote win) that any number of factors could have made the difference.

I absolutely agree on this.

We are talking 78,000 voters spread across 3 swing states. Statistically, that is rounding error. Not Jill Stein's or Spoiler-Bernie's fault at all.

Like trying to blame Ralph Nader for Gore losing. Nope, that was the whacked out voting in Florida and the Supreme Court stopping the recount. Anyone remember "Jews for Buchanan" in Palm Beach?

[Parasaurolophus]

The catastrophic failures are easy, and probably not uncommon.  Someone in charge calls 'time' and that round is over and any group with less than 15%.... these are not necessarily large crowds, either.  IF there are 100 checking in, and one group has < 15 ("catastrophic failure") then those people need to find a new home with another group. 
From the videos I saw, these events are not the Fill the stadium size crowds.

Fair enough!

[Puget]

The catastrophic failures are easy, and probably not uncommon.  Someone in charge calls 'time' and that round is over and any group with less than 15%.... these are not necessarily large crowds, either.  IF there are 100 checking in, and one group has < 15 ("catastrophic failure") then those people need to find a new home with another group. 
From the videos I saw, these events are not the Fill the stadium size crowds.

Fair enough!

I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic)-- the counting really isn't that hard.

Remember, this is being done at the precinct level, and precincts are generally fairly small geographic areas, and turn-out in caucuses is low (which is why they aren't very democratic). Each caucus site generally hosts multiple precincts, which usually are together for speeches by candidate supporters and other party business like the platform before splitting up to vote, so when you see photos of big crowds or lines, that's why. For the actual voting, we're generally talking way fewer than 100 people in a room, and although the precinct captain does the official counting, people in each candidate's group are also counting -- believe me, if the precinct captain makes a mistake, it is loudly corrected by those in the undercounted group (or other groups in case of an over-count), and then the count is done again until everyone agrees it is correct.

Groups that are on the edge of viability know it long before the official count starts and work frantically to get members of the obviously non-viable groups to move over. A lot of folks in obviously non-viable groups know they will be, and just want to be counted for them in the first round, with their second choice candidate already picked out for realignment.

So while caucuses are problematic because they make it hard for lots of people to participate, the actual counting part is really not the problem usually.

[writingprof]

I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.

[nebo113]

These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.

I suspect some of those voting patterns had to do with the fact that Hillary was expected to beat Cheeto Jesus like a rented mule.  I followed the polls in the run up to the election and Hillary was tipped to win big.  It seemed safe enough to cast a protest vote to send a message to the DNC.  Turns out it was not and people apparently lie to pollsters about what they are planning to do.  Who knew??

I have a really jaded view of Bernie supporters which is wholly unfairly based on an ex-wife of a good friend of mine. She is an avid Bernie supporter who calls Hillary "Killary," and is now calling Buttigeg "Pete the Cheat" and refusing to vote for him (good gracious am I glad she's an ex, but she is a member of our local horse club so I'm forced to be socially polite to her although it's straining me to the limit these days). She's equally vehement in her hatred of the Wotsit currently in charge, but that doesn't seem to matter as much to her. I really hope she's not representative - I think she's just an example of the worst sort of "Bernie Bro" that makes good copy, much like the people who attend Trump rallies.

I'm finding the same attitude from my local Bernie Bros.

[ciao_yall]

I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.

Each ballot goes by US mail to a registered voter, who has been vetted by the usual process. Registration is encouraged by programs like driver license registration, so people are encouraged to vote.

If a ballot is lost or damaged it can be replaced, and there are records of one voter - one ballot.

They are returned by US mail to a centralized place. No need to take time off, find one's polling place, worry about the registrar getting rid of all the polling places in your area, etc.

Pretty much impossible to cheat.

Oregon does this now and has had great results.

[marshwiggle]

I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.

Each ballot goes by US mail to a registered voter, who has been vetted by the usual process. Registration is encouraged by programs like driver license registration, so people are encouraged to vote.

If a ballot is lost or damaged it can be replaced, and there are records of one voter - one ballot.

They are returned by US mail to a centralized place. No need to take time off, find one's polling place, worry about the registrar getting rid of all the polling places in your area, etc.

Pretty much impossible to cheat.

Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.