41 ms·

Who did you have in mind to replace her?

by pekk 13y ago

protomyth 13y ago
Given its California, it's probably going to have to be a primary challenge. Looking at how the DNC is handling the South Dakota Senate race, it will be a tough fight because the party establishment is going to put the hammer down (not near as bad as the RNC lately).
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Given recent changes to CA electoral law, a primary challenge to Feinstein would open the possibility of there being no Republican option on the general election ballot, which might change the calculus a bit. In the last election, if everyone who voted for Feinstein had instead flipped a coin, and voted for Feinstein on a heads and some particular other Democrat on a tails, the general election would have been a choice between two Democrats - which would have been interesting.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Wow, I didn't realize that CA had gone that far off the track. I get mad when they don't allow 3rd parties on, so I guess this is just vote from the approved choices crap.
    - djcapelis 13y ago
      The actual system is a bit more nuanced, (or less nuanced, depending on your perspective) which is everyone runs in the same primary, there are no party divisions and the top two candidates proceed to the general election. FWIW, it was proposed and supported by Abel Maldonado, who is a GOP politician, and it was opposed by the state Democratic party.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "FWIW, it was proposed and supported by Abel Maldonado, who is a GOP politician, and it was opposed by the state Democratic party." The notion being "this wasn't forced through by the majority party", and it might therefore be more "fair"?
        djcapelis 13y ago
        A lot of people just assume the democrats are responsible for everything that happens in California. It is somewhat notable when this isn't the case, so I thought I'd mention it. I don't really buy the logic either way, but if someone else wants to, I figure they should buy something that's accurate. I voted no on that one, for whatever it's worth.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        It moves the more important, and potentially decisive, election for all affected offices to the lower-turnout, more-conservative-electorate, and now badly-misnamed "primary" and only has a "general" election at all for an office if there is no majority vote winner in the primary. Basically, most offices (but not Presidential elections) in California now have what is really the general election as the "primary", with a potential runoff as the "general election" if needed.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Do you know how often a majority in the primary occurs? In anything actually contested, I wouldn't think it common. Feinstein had almost four times the votes of any challenger in the primary, and still did not have a majority. I expect it would be more common for more local and/or more obscure offices, but I don't know at all just how common.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Do you know how often a majority in the primary occurs? Its early enough that the political strategies and funding streams haven't really adapted to it yet, so I'd be cautious in generalizing either way from the experience so far with the new system. That being said, AFAIK, there have been very few, if any, first round majorities so far in the offices that used to have party primaries.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I'm not convinced it's "off the track". Third parties are allowed in to the primary, they just need to place in the top two to be allowed into the general (just like anyone else).
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Its a good way to make sure 3rd parties never get the first 5% in an actual election or become any kind of factor (spoiler candidate). Its an establishment trick.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        They can still play spoiler in the primary. In fact, might be more of a factor there: I'm more comfortable voting for a third party candidate when I know that I'll be able to still have effect in keeping out the greatest evil down the line. Obviously, if ballot access or funds are still apportioned based on general election results, that's inappropriate.
        protomyth 13y ago
        "They can still play spoiler in the primary." No, since there is a big difference between reducing a person enough in a general to lose versus keeping them from being one of the top two. "Obviously, if ballot access or funds are still apportioned based on general election results, that's inappropriate." Which they would be. Plus, party collusion that happens (see federal election commission) pretty much locks a third party out of the general.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "No, since there is a big difference between reducing a person enough in a general to lose versus keeping them from being one of the top two." In 2012, keeping Emken from being in the top two in the primary would have required removing 278,800 votes. Giving Emken the victory in the primary would have required removing 3,098,000 votes. To the degree that this is typical, I would say that there is a big difference but it favors spoilers. "Which they would be." What do you mean "would be"? This isn't hypothetical - is that the case in CA or isn't it? If it is, then it's a strong objection. If it isn't then it's an objection to a system that doesn't exist. "Plus, party collusion that happens (see federal election commission) pretty much locks a third party out of the general." Agreed, I just don't think this is a strong example of that.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I get mad when they don't allow 3rd parties on, so I guess this is just vote from the approved choices crap. Actually, its, at least superficially, the reverse -- California replaced traditional partisan primaries with non-partisan "open primaries". Under the old partisan primary system, the general election featured the winners of the partisan primaries plus qualified non-party candidates, under the new non-partisan primary system the "primary" is a poorly-named open general election run using majority/runoff, if no candidate wins a majority in the "primary", a so-called "general election" is held which is actually a runoff election between the top two vote winners from the "primary".
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Right. Now we just need to switch the open primaries to approval voting.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Approval voting is a poor choice for most political elections (its good for non-secret-ballot group decision-making where the voters are people who can opt-out of participation after the election and an approving vote is a binding commitment by the voter not to do so if any of their "approved" alternatives win.) Now, if you said the general elections held in the spring (they aren't "primaries" in the usual sense and shouldn't be called that) should use ranked ballots voting and select the Condorcet winner with tie-breaker elections held in the fall, where necessary, as FPTP elections between the members of the Smith set of the spring elections, I'd agree that might be a worthwhile improvement.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I don't agree that approval voting is a poor choice for political elections. I particularly reject any implication (if present) that plurality should be preferred to it. I recognize that ranked methods have some substantial benefits over approval voting, but there are drawbacks. Considering just the theoretical benefits and drawbacks in this context, I would agree with a preference for ranked methods. However, when we consider the complexity (and resulting decrease in transparency) I've come to prefer approval. Even so, I wouldn't strongly object to a ranked method.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Given its California, it's probably going to have to be a primary challenge. Given that its California, "primary challenge" is a meaningless phrase for anything but a Presidential race.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    How so? If you're referring to the open primary system, that doesn't mean there are no primary challengers. In a sense, it means everyone but the incumbent is a primary challenger... but more meaningfully the distinction of a primary challenger is that they belong to the same party as the incumbent, which the open primary system still admits. It might actually help: as I've pointed out before, Feinstein got well more than 2x (actually, almost 4x) any challenger in 2012 primary so democrats could have guaranteed themselves the general election if Feinstein voters had all picked a single other Democrat as an alternate and flipped a coin (... or if even half of them did so). If you mean something else, please elaborate.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > How so? If you're referring to the open primary system, that doesn't mean there are no primary challengers. In a sense, it means everyone but the incumbent is a primary challenger It means "primary challenge" (which refers to an intra-party run in a partisan primary with a segregated pool of cnadidates) is a meaningless distinction when running against someone, since any time you run for an office, it means running in the general, non-partisan pool of candidates in the "primary" election.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I think it's clear that what was meant was "You'd have to be a Democrat to have much access to many of the votes that have been going to Feinstein, and you'd need access to those to win". Again, same party as the incumbent being the salient feature. If you want to assert it no longer quite fits, I'm on board; I don't agree that it's fair to call it "a meaningless phrase".
MarkPNeyer 13y ago
i've been considering running against her. would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? i think i have a pretty good ability to express myself and see multiple sides of an issue. edit: i grew up as a republican, but i hate where the party is now. i'm not sure which party would make the most sense, because i like some of the republican rhetoric - limited govt, lower taxes - but their implementation of it is terrible. in my experiences both parties support huge companies with different reasons. i worked at microsoft and google, twilio and uber. i did electronic trading for two years before joining the startup scene, and was cto of a small gaming startup that was acquired. i think my personal story is compelling, and i'd campaign on a platform of honesty. if you look me up online, you'd find all this "incriminating" shit on me, and i'd just say "yes that's because i'm human". i went from serious student with no social skills, to struggling drug addict with serious mental health issues, to solidly turning my life around after learning people skills, as a result of an obsession with P vs NP. i think it's extremely unlikely that anyone will be electable in 50 years if there _aren't_ pictures of them doing ridiculous things online. nobody will trust you otherwise. i'm hoping to get that party started now.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  There'd be some interest, but it'd be hard to be credible without a ton of money behind you. What party were you thinking of affiliating yourself with? That changes potential strategies dramatically. In any event, though, it's not the best way of fighting this issue since it can't make any difference for more than 4 years.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Unfortunately, her constituents won't want to give up the political power she wields as one of the most senior Senators, even if she spends most of her time abusing that power. Next weekend, do a House of Cards marathon and you'll have all of the "political background" you need to understand what you'll be up against.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    House of Cards is a fictionalized view of politics based largely on the parliamentary system (specifically, the UK parliamentary system on which the original series was based). The political maneuvering in House of Cards simply isn't possible in the U.S., including most especially, Frank's ascension in Season 1 to the VP or any of the bizarre inter-party maneuvering that dominated Season 2.

Who did you have in mind to replace her?

by pekk 13y ago

Who did you have in mind to replace her?

Given its California, it's probably going to have to be a primary challenge. Looking at how the DNC is handling the South Dakota Senate race, it will be a tough fight because the party establishment is going to put the hammer down (not near as bad as the RNC lately).

dllthomas 13y ago
Given recent changes to CA electoral law, a primary challenge to Feinstein would open the possibility of there being no Republican option on the general election ballot, which might change the calculus a bit. In the last election, if everyone who voted for Feinstein had instead flipped a coin, and voted for Feinstein on a heads and some particular other Democrat on a tails, the general election would have been a choice between two Democrats - which would have been interesting.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Wow, I didn't realize that CA had gone that far off the track. I get mad when they don't allow 3rd parties on, so I guess this is just vote from the approved choices crap.
  - djcapelis 13y ago
    The actual system is a bit more nuanced, (or less nuanced, depending on your perspective) which is everyone runs in the same primary, there are no party divisions and the top two candidates proceed to the general election. FWIW, it was proposed and supported by Abel Maldonado, who is a GOP politician, and it was opposed by the state Democratic party.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "FWIW, it was proposed and supported by Abel Maldonado, who is a GOP politician, and it was opposed by the state Democratic party." The notion being "this wasn't forced through by the majority party", and it might therefore be more "fair"?
      - djcapelis 13y ago
        A lot of people just assume the democrats are responsible for everything that happens in California. It is somewhat notable when this isn't the case, so I thought I'd mention it. I don't really buy the logic either way, but if someone else wants to, I figure they should buy something that's accurate. I voted no on that one, for whatever it's worth.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      It moves the more important, and potentially decisive, election for all affected offices to the lower-turnout, more-conservative-electorate, and now badly-misnamed "primary" and only has a "general" election at all for an office if there is no majority vote winner in the primary. Basically, most offices (but not Presidential elections) in California now have what is really the general election as the "primary", with a potential runoff as the "general election" if needed.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Do you know how often a majority in the primary occurs? In anything actually contested, I wouldn't think it common. Feinstein had almost four times the votes of any challenger in the primary, and still did not have a majority. I expect it would be more common for more local and/or more obscure offices, but I don't know at all just how common.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Do you know how often a majority in the primary occurs? Its early enough that the political strategies and funding streams haven't really adapted to it yet, so I'd be cautious in generalizing either way from the experience so far with the new system. That being said, AFAIK, there have been very few, if any, first round majorities so far in the offices that used to have party primaries.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I'm not convinced it's "off the track". Third parties are allowed in to the primary, they just need to place in the top two to be allowed into the general (just like anyone else).
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Its a good way to make sure 3rd parties never get the first 5% in an actual election or become any kind of factor (spoiler candidate). Its an establishment trick.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        They can still play spoiler in the primary. In fact, might be more of a factor there: I'm more comfortable voting for a third party candidate when I know that I'll be able to still have effect in keeping out the greatest evil down the line. Obviously, if ballot access or funds are still apportioned based on general election results, that's inappropriate.
        protomyth 13y ago
        "They can still play spoiler in the primary." No, since there is a big difference between reducing a person enough in a general to lose versus keeping them from being one of the top two. "Obviously, if ballot access or funds are still apportioned based on general election results, that's inappropriate." Which they would be. Plus, party collusion that happens (see federal election commission) pretty much locks a third party out of the general.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "No, since there is a big difference between reducing a person enough in a general to lose versus keeping them from being one of the top two." In 2012, keeping Emken from being in the top two in the primary would have required removing 278,800 votes. Giving Emken the victory in the primary would have required removing 3,098,000 votes. To the degree that this is typical, I would say that there is a big difference but it favors spoilers. "Which they would be." What do you mean "would be"? This isn't hypothetical - is that the case in CA or isn't it? If it is, then it's a strong objection. If it isn't then it's an objection to a system that doesn't exist. "Plus, party collusion that happens (see federal election commission) pretty much locks a third party out of the general." Agreed, I just don't think this is a strong example of that.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I get mad when they don't allow 3rd parties on, so I guess this is just vote from the approved choices crap. Actually, its, at least superficially, the reverse -- California replaced traditional partisan primaries with non-partisan "open primaries". Under the old partisan primary system, the general election featured the winners of the partisan primaries plus qualified non-party candidates, under the new non-partisan primary system the "primary" is a poorly-named open general election run using majority/runoff, if no candidate wins a majority in the "primary", a so-called "general election" is held which is actually a runoff election between the top two vote winners from the "primary".
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Right. Now we just need to switch the open primaries to approval voting.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        Approval voting is a poor choice for most political elections (its good for non-secret-ballot group decision-making where the voters are people who can opt-out of participation after the election and an approving vote is a binding commitment by the voter not to do so if any of their "approved" alternatives win.) Now, if you said the general elections held in the spring (they aren't "primaries" in the usual sense and shouldn't be called that) should use ranked ballots voting and select the Condorcet winner with tie-breaker elections held in the fall, where necessary, as FPTP elections between the members of the Smith set of the spring elections, I'd agree that might be a worthwhile improvement.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I don't agree that approval voting is a poor choice for political elections. I particularly reject any implication (if present) that plurality should be preferred to it. I recognize that ranked methods have some substantial benefits over approval voting, but there are drawbacks. Considering just the theoretical benefits and drawbacks in this context, I would agree with a preference for ranked methods. However, when we consider the complexity (and resulting decrease in transparency) I've come to prefer approval. Even so, I wouldn't strongly object to a ranked method.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Given its California, it's probably going to have to be a primary challenge. Given that its California, "primary challenge" is a meaningless phrase for anything but a Presidential race.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  How so? If you're referring to the open primary system, that doesn't mean there are no primary challengers. In a sense, it means everyone but the incumbent is a primary challenger... but more meaningfully the distinction of a primary challenger is that they belong to the same party as the incumbent, which the open primary system still admits. It might actually help: as I've pointed out before, Feinstein got well more than 2x (actually, almost 4x) any challenger in 2012 primary so democrats could have guaranteed themselves the general election if Feinstein voters had all picked a single other Democrat as an alternate and flipped a coin (... or if even half of them did so). If you mean something else, please elaborate.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > How so? If you're referring to the open primary system, that doesn't mean there are no primary challengers. In a sense, it means everyone but the incumbent is a primary challenger It means "primary challenge" (which refers to an intra-party run in a partisan primary with a segregated pool of cnadidates) is a meaningless distinction when running against someone, since any time you run for an office, it means running in the general, non-partisan pool of candidates in the "primary" election.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I think it's clear that what was meant was "You'd have to be a Democrat to have much access to many of the votes that have been going to Feinstein, and you'd need access to those to win". Again, same party as the incumbent being the salient feature. If you want to assert it no longer quite fits, I'm on board; I don't agree that it's fair to call it "a meaningless phrase".

MarkPNeyer 13y ago

i've been considering running against her. would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? i think i have a pretty good ability to express myself and see multiple sides of an issue. edit: i grew up as a republican, but i hate where the party is now. i'm not sure which party would make the most sense, because i like some of the republican rhetoric - limited govt, lower taxes - but their implementation of it is terrible. in my experiences both parties support huge companies with different reasons. i worked at microsoft and google, twilio and uber. i did electronic trading for two years before joining the startup scene, and was cto of a small gaming startup that was acquired. i think my personal story is compelling, and i'd campaign on a platform of honesty. if you look me up online, you'd find all this "incriminating" shit on me, and i'd just say "yes that's because i'm human". i went from serious student with no social skills, to struggling drug addict with serious mental health issues, to solidly turning my life around after learning people skills, as a result of an obsession with P vs NP. i think it's extremely unlikely that anyone will be electable in 50 years if there _aren't_ pictures of them doing ridiculous things online. nobody will trust you otherwise. i'm hoping to get that party started now.

dllthomas 13y ago
There'd be some interest, but it'd be hard to be credible without a ton of money behind you. What party were you thinking of affiliating yourself with? That changes potential strategies dramatically. In any event, though, it's not the best way of fighting this issue since it can't make any difference for more than 4 years.
CamperBob2 13y ago
Unfortunately, her constituents won't want to give up the political power she wields as one of the most senior Senators, even if she spends most of her time abusing that power. Next weekend, do a House of Cards marathon and you'll have all of the "political background" you need to understand what you'll be up against.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  House of Cards is a fictionalized view of politics based largely on the parliamentary system (specifically, the UK parliamentary system on which the original series was based). The political maneuvering in House of Cards simply isn't possible in the U.S., including most especially, Frank's ascension in Season 1 to the VP or any of the bizarre inter-party maneuvering that dominated Season 2.