Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Brand Nubian (after Puba, left, even). Nicely done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RgujsIb7RY

TM

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/op...smtyp=cur&_r=0

TM

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Yeah, I think of NY and Cleveland as other cities with some clearly demonstrated institutional problems.

But it can and does happen anywhere.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

"I get laid by the ladies, ya know I'm in charge
Both how I'm living and my nose is large"

Did you know that the Humpty Dance was the second time Shock G's alternate persona, Humpty Hump, appeared in a song?

Did you know that Tupac was in Digital Underground when they put out the Humpty Dance?

Did you know that one of the samples used in the song was from a 1973 Vibrettes song called the Humpty Dump?

Droppin' knowledge, it's your Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHYq204pEXc

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

He wasn't really in Digital Underground. He was a dancer.

When Same Song came out (connected to that awful Chase/Ackroid/Candy movie,* Nothing But Trouble), Tupac blew me away. Average song, but they gave Tupac like 10 bars. I must have rewound just that part a hundred times and still have it memorized. He said in an interview that he wasn't going to let that opportunity go by, so he packed as many words into those 10 bars as he could.

https://youtu.be/3cyfV7mllWo?t=2m11s

TM

*Who knew that was even possible, but what a piece of shit that movie was.

Independents
 

Can someone fill me in on why people think it's unfair to restrict voting in Democratic primaries to registered Democrats (freezing out Independents)? I understand why someone would think it was unfair to keep people from switching their registration, but if you are an Independent, aren't you essentially saying you don't to be involved with one party? Or is the argument that they should have the freedom to influence whatever party they're leaning towards that year?

TM

Re: Independents
 

In good pb fashion, I won't answer your question but make a comment on it instead.

The debate we always had when I was a party minion was whether it helps more to build the party to make people join if they want to vote in the primary or to have them take the lesser step of identifying with the party by voting in its primary even if not a member. I like what we have in Mass. - it's an open primary, but once you take a ballot you become registered in the party and have to unregister if you don't want to be part of it.

To me, the question is not "what's more democratic" - that is silly, there is nothing undemocratic about a party nomination being made by party members - but "what builds the party better". Of course, if you have no commitment to the party, you don't like my question.

But what's going on now isn't about what anyone thinks the right answer is. It is just about what Bernie can whine about in hopes of finding some traction. It's just political gaming.

Re: Independents
 

I get the argument that the deadline in New York for changing party registration was too long ago (October for an April primary? That is pretty crazy). I don't understand the other argument - maybe because I've never lived in an open primary state. I mean, doesn't it make sense that the people who are registered Republicans should be the ones choosing* who will have the "R" next to her name in the general election?

And some states have a history in which bosses (of both major parties) would use late registration deadlines to have their supporters register for an upstart party and take control of it to endorse the candidate slate picked by the boss. I'm pretty sure that that was a favorite tactic of Tammany Hall and the O'Connell machines on the Democratic side and Frank Hague on the GOP side. I think we don't need to have a six month delay to prevent that from happening, but anyway.

A bigger issue is the inability of people registered as independents or with "no party affiliation" to vote in local or state primary elections - I've lived in places where one didn't have a vote in who was going to be on the school board or who would become the county sheriff if you weren't a registered Republican (and I'm sure the reverse is true in lots of places in California, New York, and Massachusetts). That's a bigger problem, in my view, than in not being able to vote for Trump or Sanders in a presidential primary.

*Leaving aside the whole "who picks the delegates to the nominating convention and who decides who the delegates vote for at said convention and for how many ballots" issue, of course.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

That was an excellent clip. Tupac was such a genius.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

So, it turns out that using the name of a large state as an insult isn't the best way to secure votes in that state. Who knew?


Has anyone heard from SEC Chick? I worry.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

"I took it home that night and analyzed it
Rewound the tape over and over, and memorized it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68UmIY0lFQ

Re: Independents
 

I don't think it's "unfair" but I do think it's a little anti-democratic. I tend to want to err on the side of inclusive participation, in part because I think the risks of outsiders and cross-overs heavily influencing outcomes is small if participation is broad, but I get why parties trade off between inclusion and "letting the party decide."

New York has a primary but restricts participation to party registrants. Minnesota has no party registration, but restricts participation by using a caucus with limited hours. Both would probably get "better" (i.e., closer to the mean D voter) results if they opened up more, which I'd advocate, but neither is unjust.

Regardless, there is certainly nothing for the Bernie campaign to complain about in New York, unless he wants to give back some of his Minnesota delegates.

Re: Independents
 

I'm not sure that candidate selection is where you should be focusing your party-building efforts. And, of course, nothing builds the party like winning.

Re: Independents
 

I disagree with the notion that it is "undemocratic" to exclude people who did not register for a party in the voting for the party's nominee. To me, that's like saying that it is undemocratic to preclude legal residents, who have chosen not to become US citizens, to vote. And if independents should have the "democratic" right to vote in whatever primary they choose, why shouldn't anyone else?

That said -- it is not necessarily smart to exclude independents from the primaries. Since independents are critical in the general election, there is an argument that the parties would be better off having independents participate in the selection process to help pick the most viable candidate for the general.

Of course, this year would seem to prove that wrong, as Trump isn't the most viable Republican (Sanders' supporters claim that he is the best Dem for a general, but I have serious doubts about that as the GOP has studiously avoided saying anything about him so that he would continue undermining Clinton).

Overall -- I would support anything that would have the nominating contests, particularly in the GOP over the last several election cycles, not push so far to the extremes. In state and district elections, I think opening the primaries helps, somewhat, with that. In the presidential election, I don't really think so -- I think it leads more to people who have just started paying attention voting, and being swayed by the candidate who takes extreme positions and paints everything in black-and-white. Getting rid of the caucuses would be a better solution, in my view.

Re: Independents
 

I remember my 7th grade gym teacher telling he was voting for McGovern in the primary because he knew Nixon would destroy him. The thing with an actual independent, especially this year, is that we are thinking "I can't believe I have to vote for one of these people in November, I am not doing it in March too."