United States US presidential election 2024

[Terthna]

The statistics show that there are more establishment hacks than previously thought, no offense I am not a fan of Trump anymore by any means, but anybody who votes Haley is part of the problem, at least Desantis for all accusations against him of being a hack wasn't a complete and utter surrender of going back to the Republican establishment, we don't need a return to the Bush Jr years.

The fact that Dems laude Haley is telling enough that they recognize her as a candidate who will 'work with them' to help them slowly advance their agenda again.

The problem with those statistics is that they don't show how many of Haley's votes are from Democrats; which we know is happening, because not only have they bragged about it, Haley's campaign is also openly trying get even more of them to vote for her:

Sorry, Haley. Democrats probably won't help you avoid disaster in South Carolina.

“I don’t think she’s going to get a lot of Democrats to participate,” one Democratic strategist said.

www.politico.com

Considering that; there may be far less establishment hack Republicans supporting her than the statistics suggest.

 

[LordsFire]

The plan may be that she's trying to win at least one state, because if she can get some primary votes, she can try to claim the candidacy if the Dems manage to force Trump out via lawfare.

 

[DarthOne]

Haley is a democrat with a paper thin republicuck disguise
How she hasn't been kicked out of the party baffles me

Because the GOP are next to useless.

 

[Blasterbot]

One thing to consider as well is a lot of republican outreach relies on using primary/caucus participation. this is going to fuck with fundraising, mailers, texting, and surveying republican aligned voters for several cycles. it takes money to get people to call. it takes money for each leaflet. it takes time and effort and this is going to take years to fix the rolls as these dems are openly saying they are just gonna vote dem after this. her staying in and encouraging dem participation actively hurts the party in the long term and the short term.

 

[49ersfootball]

Is hilarious to me that they called it a few minutes in. this really is the least competitive primary season in spite of all the hullaballoo people keep making over it.

The GOP primary was over the second Trump got indicted by the Biden Justice Department.

 

[Skallagrim]

Isn't the obvious solution to just make participation in party primaries exclusively accessible to people who have been a member of the party for a given period beforehand (e.g. 12 months)?

That way, if a Democrat really wants to infiltrate, he at least has to pay 12 months' worth in contribution to a party he hates, before he can have a say. That would effectively discourage almost all of the infiltrators.

Obviously, paying a years' worth of contribution at the door (or paying, for instance, 8 months' worth if you've only been a member for 4 months) could reasonably be a valid alternative to having actually been a member for the actual period. That way, enthousiastic new members who are willing to contribute can still get access. (As they should!)

Likewise, proof of a campaign donation that equals or exceeds the relevant contribution would also qualify you. The goal isn't to make participation extra difficult-- it's just to keep the Dems out. And it would do that nicely, because while they might be willing to 'become a Republican for a day', they won't want to actually contribute real money to the GOP...

Problem solved.

 

[Zachowon]

You then hurt any of those of the newest voting block and those that can't spend money to donate

 

[Blasterbot]

Open primary was important for getting Trump in the 1st time. it allows the party to shift to represent the constituency better. unfortunately it also is open for abuse.

 

[Buba]

Isn't the obvious solution to just make participation in party primaries exclusively accessible to people who have been a member of the party for a given period beforehand (e.g. 12 months)?

GASP!
u 2 smart zomg wtf rofle omg!!!111
I suspect that this was not implemented over the last 150 years because reasons.
EDIT:
two reasons posted while I was writting

 

[Skallagrim]

You then hurt any of those of the newest voting block and those that can't spend money to donate

If that's your position ("people who don't pay should get a say"), then your argument is functionally that people who contribute zip -- aren't even paying party members -- should have a say. That's like saying non-citizens should get to vote in the general election because they're just "the newest voting bloc and can't spend money"...

That's ridiculous.

 

[Blasterbot]

GASP!
u 2 smart zomg wtf rofle omg!!!111
I suspect that this was not implemented over the last 150 years because reasons.
EDIT:
two reasons posted while I was writting

It is a valid point to bring up at least and something to consider.

dems are abusing the open primary right now. at the very least we do need to consider if it is a trade off worth keeping. is the security of our primary important enough to give up being the more responsive of the 2 parties?

If that's your position ("people who don't pay should get a say"), then your argument is functionally that people who contribute zip -- aren't even paying party members -- should have a say. That's like saying non-citizens should get to vote in the general election because they're just "the newest voting bloc and can't spend money"...

That's ridiculous.

their vote is their support. participation in the primary encourages participation in politics and increases their chance of voting for the candidate in the general as they are more invested in the outcome.

it is a valid point to bring up though I agree. this is an issue that needs to be examined. it is absolutely being abused now. If it is being abused now there is no reason to presume that it will stop being abused.

 

[Buba]

You then hurt any of those of the newest voting block

it allows the party to shift to represent the constituency better.

I can understand these reasons. Reasonable.
The first I see linked to inflow of "new blood" attracted by Candidate X.
The second is connected to the above, I guess, but the 12 month - or even 6? - cool down period - should not be that deterimental to shifts?
Maybe e.g. give long timers 2 votes, to appease (piss off?) everybody?

 

[Skallagrim]

It is a valid point to bring up at least and something to consider.

dems are abusing the open primary right now. at the very least we do need to consider if it is a trade off worth keeping. is the security of our primary important enough to give up being the more responsive of the 2 parties?



their vote is their support. participation in the primary encourages participation in politics and increases their chance of voting for the candidate in the general as they are more invested in the outcome.

it is a valid point to bring up though I agree. this is an issue that needs to be examined. it is absolutely being abused now. If it is being abused now there is no reason to presume that it will stop being abused.

The second is connected to the above, I guess, but the 12 month - or even 6? - coll down period - would not be that deterimental to shifts?

You could make it six months, sure. 12 is an indicator here, not a definitive proposal. It also depends on what the contribution would be. If that's substantial enough to be a bit 'discouraging' to dishonest actors, even three months could suffice.

At present, I'm not even sure that American parties have fixed membership fees. In my own country, such fees are pretty low. Deliberate infiltration tactics are almost non-existent, though. The only thing you sometimes see is dual membership of parties that one both agrees with (e.g. social democrats who are also greens). People don't join parties they hate... because that would involve giving money to those parties! And it's precisely this... counter-incentive... that I'd try to use as a defensive instrument.

My point is that if you set a certain reasonable bar -- an investment in the party, even a fairly nominal one -- you keep nearly all infiltrators out. Because they don't want to contribute to your cause. They just want to ruin it.

 

[Terthna]

The plan may be that she's trying to win at least one state, because if she can get some primary votes, she can try to claim the candidacy if the Dems manage to force Trump out via lawfare.

If she can't even win in her home state though, even with help from the Democrats, I'm not sure how she expects to do that.

 

[Abhorsen]

If she can't even win in her home state though, even with help from the Democrats, I'm not sure how she expects to do that.

SC isn't actually a good state for Haley. But MA, NY, or CA? Those she could win.

 

[49ersfootball]

You then hurt any of those of the newest voting block and those that can't spend money to donate

The Grifters gotta Grift.

 

[LordsFire]

At present, I'm not even sure that American parties have fixed membership fees.

Here in Iowa at least, they don't.

 

[Abhorsen]

At present, I'm not even sure that American parties have fixed membership fees.

They kinda don't. If you want to get involved in party politics outside of voting (going to meetings, etc), they can, depending on state. But signing up for a party is just a check box on an voter registration.

Note that US parties are not like political parties in the rest of the world. They aren't a single entity, like a club, that can allow members in or kick members out. There is no actual Republican Organization or Democrat Organization, of which all Republicans/Democrats are members. Instead, they have organizing committees that claim that they represent the party, and they effectively do, because people in the party send them money. This is the DNC and RNC.

It's a weird mess, basically.

 

[Skallagrim]

They kinda don't. If you want to get involved in party politics outside of voting (going to meetings, etc), they can, depending on state. But signing up for a party is just a check box on an voter registration.

Note that US parties are not like political parties in the rest of the world. They aren't a single entity, like a club, that can allow members in or kick members out. There is no actual Republican Organization or Democrat Organization, of which all Republicans/Democrats are members. Instead, they have organizing committees that claim that they represent the party, and they effectively do, because people in the party send them money. This is the DNC and RNC.

It's a weird mess, basically.

That seems... very susceptible to abuses of various sorts.

I can sort of intuit where it came from, and the original impulse behind such a set-up was probably even noble. But I'm not very that it's well-suited to an age where political organisation is no longer a matter of organising your own local community for the purpose of concerted political action; and where our means of transport and communication allow us access (e.g. to the political gatherings of others, elsewhere in the same state, with whose affairs we otherwise have nothing to do) that would previously have been inconceivable.

That being said: the notion suggested earlier, based somewhat on how it's generally done elsewhere, was prompted by the suggestion that a meaningful degree of "infiltration" is acually going on. If that's not the case, if all such attempts are effectively meaningless and unable to tip the scales, then changes are not -- as yet -- necessary. (Chesterton's fence, and all.)

I'm just pretty worried that if the potential for abuse exists, the establishment will not hesitate to exploit that. After all, that's what they do when it comes to the USA's (unique-in-the-civilised-world) lack of voter ID as a universal prerequisite for exercising the franchise.

 

[Abhorsen]

That seems... very susceptible to abuses of various sorts.

Yes.

I can sort of intuit where it came from, and the original impulse behind such a set-up was probably even noble. But I'm not very that it's well-suited to an age where political organisation is no longer a matter of organising your own local community for the purpose of concerted political action; and where our means of transport and communication allow us access (e.g. to the political gatherings of others, elsewhere in the same state, with whose affairs we otherwise have nothing to do) that would previously have been inconceivable.

It wasn't noble or ignoble, it was just sorta arbitrary and kinda happened. It's a mess, but I doubt it is gonna be fixed. The one place that does it right is, oddly enough, the LNP, which explicitly doesn't give a shit about the primary (I mean, they look at them, but it's sorta immaterial), and instead has state affiliates choose the delegation sent to the National Convention, who choose the president. And state affiliates choose in a variety of ways, but mostly by polls among people who show up to state meetings.