I only saw the very end of their debate but apparently the opponent of AOC (two or three times, I received texts on my phone for polls that turned into what looked like an anti-AOC push poll) is laying it on thick. The most important thing is, glitches and all, we did get a debate between the primary candidates. It was on BronxNet, one of various public/community access type channels for which FIOS provides no guide information so I do not know when things are on ahead of time. I did notice among the channels I now get (Bronx) News 12 though it would be more helpful if it was on Channel 12 as it is on another provider.
Some people in a safe seats, especially now, rather not debate so again it's appreciated. As is the news that the federal court of appeals, with NY not planning to appeal, upheld the district court ruling requiring a presidential primary election. Simply cancelling in midstream, especially with mail-in balloting and 2/3 of the counties (including NYC counties) already having races, was in bad form. The limited amount of extra resources necessary to send and process mail-in ballots -- which push comes to shove it could have done like other states if in person voting in any area was problematic -- still does not seem to be worth it balancing other interests. And, the lag time for the failed litigation cuts short prep time to meet deadlines.
This ruling also influenced Puerto Rico, with a similar law as NY originally had, to set a primary in early July. The court said it deciding mostly for the reasons of the district court but a full opinion would come later. Meanwhile, this state court of appeals opinion regarding two candidates kept off the ballot for reasons connected to the Big V seems petty and not compelled (see dissents). OTOH, this does seem like there is something real there and it isn't the first time. Recall that in New York, the "Supreme Court" is actually the lowest court in the chain.
Two primaries this week. First, we had Oregon on Tuesday with sixty-one delegates and then Hawaii on Friday with twenty-four. Sanders always had enough to break the 15% floor in Oregon but edged a little bit higher near the end. Then, it held around 85% of the vote cast. Warren has around 10% and Gabbard and sign-in both are around two percent each. It might suggest the left-leaning nature of the state that even at this late date a third voted against Biden. Though there is still more votes to count, both AP and 270 to Win estimates a split of 46/15 delegate-wise between the two candidates. A strict population apportionment without the fifteen percent floor would give Warren about six delegates and even Gabbard might get one. Now, each get nothing and one can debate at least if 10% of the vote makes the just. Again, one can see how all this can matter in an actual election with more bite.
Shades of some late 2016 states that gave anti-Trump support in the twenties or something. There is no sign of that now, suggesting the need for a real protest Republican candidate like Pat Buchanan in the days of yore. It is misunderstood by some, saw this myself, that the reason is that there really aren't Republican presidential primaries. One problem is that there is no candidate likely to obtain a floor, the usual being 15%, which is the rule in many states. New York cancelled it because no candidate could get signatures in all the districts. But, we still are having many Republican presidential primaries.
Take Nebraska, a small but Republican friendly state. Bill Weld, who couldn't get on the ballot in NY, received 8.5% of the vote. Not bad for someone who basically stopped running even his kinda campaign months ago. Imagine some big name with the resources and drive to give it a go the whole way? It is a blot on the party no one did. And, even Oregon, which I see only has Trump on the ballot, there was over six percent write-ins, which is a pretty large number as to that method. Over twenty-four thousand people felt it obligatory to go out of their way to vote Republican and vote for someone other than Trump. I think that matters. The write-in for the Democratic senator race is less than two percent.
Hawaii had its primary on Friday, and apparently because the primary was originally April 4th, not just the "final four" (Biden/Sanders/Warren/Gabbard) were on the ballot this time. The results came out early evening on Saturday and the AP with less than 35K voting (over 500K voted in Oregon, again we aren't just talking presidential races), the split is 16/8, again fairly not surprising in a liberal leaning state. That would be 63/37 percentage-wise with ranked choice run-off voting to eliminate the other candidates. Just by mail but the later date did leave more time to register. The turnout is a tad disappointing when you note that there are over one millionaire people in Hawaii compared to over four million in Oregon. Even if you factor in the population differential, Oregon did better voting. OTOH, Oregon had some state elections too.
Meanwhile, some have a "vote by mail" mantra. As with the "vice presidents don't matter at all in elections" line, this raises my "no absolutes" spider sense. And, experts do say that voting by mail plus is the way to go. This includes drop boxes, which is a good idea -- you can track the ballot (if you have computer access) if it is set like media mail and the like, but some would actually want to drop off. But, in person methods also would be useful, including to ask questions and so forth. In some cases, at least in a limited form (Rick Hasen is against unlimited means to collect ballots), having third parties pick up your ballot and deliver them also might be a good idea. Anyway, the experts also say we have a ways to go to be fully ready and the asshole isn't helping with his ranting.
Oh well. That's all they wrote primary-wise until June.
ETA: In a past entry, third parties were referenced and 2016 suggests this addendum is warranted. Jo Jorgenson, a past vice presidential candidate (1996) and Clemson psychology lecturer (not quite Gary Johnson) was nominated to be the Libertarian candidate. There was some concern with Justin Amash's run but he decided the time wasn't right. They went another way.
Some people in a safe seats, especially now, rather not debate so again it's appreciated. As is the news that the federal court of appeals, with NY not planning to appeal, upheld the district court ruling requiring a presidential primary election. Simply cancelling in midstream, especially with mail-in balloting and 2/3 of the counties (including NYC counties) already having races, was in bad form. The limited amount of extra resources necessary to send and process mail-in ballots -- which push comes to shove it could have done like other states if in person voting in any area was problematic -- still does not seem to be worth it balancing other interests. And, the lag time for the failed litigation cuts short prep time to meet deadlines.
This ruling also influenced Puerto Rico, with a similar law as NY originally had, to set a primary in early July. The court said it deciding mostly for the reasons of the district court but a full opinion would come later. Meanwhile, this state court of appeals opinion regarding two candidates kept off the ballot for reasons connected to the Big V seems petty and not compelled (see dissents). OTOH, this does seem like there is something real there and it isn't the first time. Recall that in New York, the "Supreme Court" is actually the lowest court in the chain.
Two primaries this week. First, we had Oregon on Tuesday with sixty-one delegates and then Hawaii on Friday with twenty-four. Sanders always had enough to break the 15% floor in Oregon but edged a little bit higher near the end. Then, it held around 85% of the vote cast. Warren has around 10% and Gabbard and sign-in both are around two percent each. It might suggest the left-leaning nature of the state that even at this late date a third voted against Biden. Though there is still more votes to count, both AP and 270 to Win estimates a split of 46/15 delegate-wise between the two candidates. A strict population apportionment without the fifteen percent floor would give Warren about six delegates and even Gabbard might get one. Now, each get nothing and one can debate at least if 10% of the vote makes the just. Again, one can see how all this can matter in an actual election with more bite.
Shades of some late 2016 states that gave anti-Trump support in the twenties or something. There is no sign of that now, suggesting the need for a real protest Republican candidate like Pat Buchanan in the days of yore. It is misunderstood by some, saw this myself, that the reason is that there really aren't Republican presidential primaries. One problem is that there is no candidate likely to obtain a floor, the usual being 15%, which is the rule in many states. New York cancelled it because no candidate could get signatures in all the districts. But, we still are having many Republican presidential primaries.
Take Nebraska, a small but Republican friendly state. Bill Weld, who couldn't get on the ballot in NY, received 8.5% of the vote. Not bad for someone who basically stopped running even his kinda campaign months ago. Imagine some big name with the resources and drive to give it a go the whole way? It is a blot on the party no one did. And, even Oregon, which I see only has Trump on the ballot, there was over six percent write-ins, which is a pretty large number as to that method. Over twenty-four thousand people felt it obligatory to go out of their way to vote Republican and vote for someone other than Trump. I think that matters. The write-in for the Democratic senator race is less than two percent.
Hawaii had its primary on Friday, and apparently because the primary was originally April 4th, not just the "final four" (Biden/Sanders/Warren/Gabbard) were on the ballot this time. The results came out early evening on Saturday and the AP with less than 35K voting (over 500K voted in Oregon, again we aren't just talking presidential races), the split is 16/8, again fairly not surprising in a liberal leaning state. That would be 63/37 percentage-wise with ranked choice run-off voting to eliminate the other candidates. Just by mail but the later date did leave more time to register. The turnout is a tad disappointing when you note that there are over one millionaire people in Hawaii compared to over four million in Oregon. Even if you factor in the population differential, Oregon did better voting. OTOH, Oregon had some state elections too.
Meanwhile, some have a "vote by mail" mantra. As with the "vice presidents don't matter at all in elections" line, this raises my "no absolutes" spider sense. And, experts do say that voting by mail plus is the way to go. This includes drop boxes, which is a good idea -- you can track the ballot (if you have computer access) if it is set like media mail and the like, but some would actually want to drop off. But, in person methods also would be useful, including to ask questions and so forth. In some cases, at least in a limited form (Rick Hasen is against unlimited means to collect ballots), having third parties pick up your ballot and deliver them also might be a good idea. Anyway, the experts also say we have a ways to go to be fully ready and the asshole isn't helping with his ranting.
Oh well. That's all they wrote primary-wise until June.
ETA: In a past entry, third parties were referenced and 2016 suggests this addendum is warranted. Jo Jorgenson, a past vice presidential candidate (1996) and Clemson psychology lecturer (not quite Gary Johnson) was nominated to be the Libertarian candidate. There was some concern with Justin Amash's run but he decided the time wasn't right. They went another way.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!