Old Thread About Election Consequences
sbenois said:
Nan, why aren't you supporting the progressive in the race? Surely the Working Families Party is more progressive than the DNC backed candidate. Are you now against working families?
The Working Families Party originally endorsed Joe Crowley, so they are obviously not what they may claim to be. Many political organizations have Progressive sounding names and mission statements, for example conservative and libertarian think tanks with names like "American Progress."
Oh obviously.
Not.
The Working Families Party is exactly what they purport to be.
But unlike you, they also recognize that pragmatism in politics is often more important than standing on ceremony when it comes to achieving their goals.
sbenois said:
Oh obviously.
Not.
The Working Families Party is exactly what they purport to be.
But unlike you, they also recognize that pragmatism in politics is often more important than standing on ceremony when it comes to achieving their goals.
You are spewing nonsense. Obviously. Yes.
As explained in the NY Times this morning (by the way, it's always a good idea to let at least a day go by before deciding you have an opinion on something or someone, even in this instant-information age), under New York law the only way the Working Families Party can change who is on its ballot is if the candidate dies, or moves, or accepts a nomination for a different office. Crowley said that the first two weren't options he'd consider. As for being nominated for a different office, it would be for something minor, some place that he would never consider serving, and in his mind it would be like election fraud.
Crowley endorsed the nominee the night the primary was decided. He's still endorsing the nominee. The attacks against him that came instantly yesterday shouldn't have been made, and everybody should have taken at least a day before commenting on this (see my earlier parenthetical about "always a good idea").
Nan, Guess you did not read this:
LOST said:
According to Jerry H. Goldfeder, an election lawyer and an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law, the simplest answer is the state’s “extremely peculiar election laws.”
With the exception of extreme circumstances like death or moving out of state, a non–write-in candidate who wins a nomination can only be removed from the ballot if he or she accepts the same party’s nomination in another race, typically a lower-profile contest in another part of New York dominated by another party. The Working Families Party requested Crowley do just that after he lost the Democratic primary, but he reportedly refused. On Thursday, as Ocasio-Cortez’s complaint was gaining traction on Twitter, Crowley explained that he believes such a switch would be akin to “election fraud.”
Goldfeder said jumping races isn’t election fraud in the legal sense of the term but that the congressman’s logic makes sense. “He wants to avoid a fraud on the voters,” Goldfeder told Slate. “He wants to avoid the charade of running for another office [that he doesn’t want].” Goldfeder added that he sees no reason to suspect Crowley is plotting a third-party challenge against Ocasio-Cortez. “He’s endorsed her; he’s going to work for her,” Goldfeder said. “The district is going to elect her.”
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:It’s an arcane law. It’s just possible that Bill Lipton was not aware of it.
That's what Crowley said but the head of the Working Families Party asked him if he wanted his name removed and he said "No." Why would the head of the WFP ask him if he wanted it removed if it was not possible?
nan said:
cramer said:Going back to my article:
"The nation’s official poverty rate in 2016 was 12.7 percent, with 40.6 million people in poverty, 2.5 million fewer than in 2015. The 0.8 percentage point decrease from 2015 to 2016 represents the second consecutive annual decline in poverty. The 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from the 2007 rate (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession."
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/income-povery.html
" . . .The Definitions of Poverty are Way out of Date
The poverty threshold is still based on a formula from the 1960s, when food expenses were a much greater part of the family budget. It hasn't kept up with other major expenses. Since 1980, food costs have gone up by 100%, housing 250%, health care 500%, and college tuition 1,000%.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) says, "If the same basic methodology developed in the early 1960s was applied today, the poverty thresholds would be over three times higher than the current thresholds." Three times higher!
The median household income in the U.S. in 2016 was $59,039. The Economic Policy Institute's 2015 Family Budget Calculator determined that the median budget for a two-parent, two-child family is $63,741. As CRS concluded, that's about three times higher than the current poverty threshold.
In 2014, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, median household expenses were $36,800, against income of about $54,000. But that includes very little for wealth-building investments, such as short- and long-term savings, college education, and life insurance. After accounting for annual outlays for these essential and/or typical family expenses, the median household in the lower third was $2,300 in debt. For the middle third of households, which reaches well into the "middle class," only $6,000 remained for wealth-building and other discretionary expenses. That $6,000 dissipates quickly. Says Pew Research: "Because income is measured before taxes, some families will have had even less slack in their budgets than this figure implies." . . . "
No where in this article are there actual statistics proving half of Americans are in or near poverty.
lord_pabulum said:
nan said:No where in this article are there actual statistics proving half of Americans are in or near poverty.
The poverty threshold is still based on a formula from the 1960s, when food expenses were a much greater part of the family budget. It hasn't kept up with other major expenses. Since 1980, food costs have gone up by 100%, housing 250%, health care 500%, and college tuition 1,000%.
Also, for the record: Since 1980, the poverty income threshold for a family of four has gone up by 200%. Food and housing account for about 46% of a typical household’s expenses, according to the BLS; health care about 8%. (College tuition seems like a red herring here, because among all the families out there, relatively few have children that age or approaching it, and low-income families aren’t charged the sticker price.)
@nan girl, who has the time to read your monologue's? But we appreciate your passion, that's for sure!
In the terminology of hip hop, @nan is clearly stanning for Bernie. That means, no matter what proof is put out -- PROOF from legitimate sources, people, etc., those who adore Bernie and believe he was made to be a political step child, will NEVER believe he simply wasn't a strong enough candidate to win the presidency. Bernie stans are practically the same as Trumpsters.
And to be clear... one is considered a LOSER when one didn't win. Period.
kibbegirl said:
@nan girl, who has the time to read your monologue's? But we appreciate your passion, that's for sure!
In the terminology of hip hop, @nan is clearly stanning for Bernie. That means, no matter what proof is put out -- PROOF from legitimate sources, people, etc., those who adore Bernie and believe he was made to be a political step child, will NEVER believe he simply wasn't a strong enough candidate to win the presidency. Bernie stans are practically the same as Trumpsters.
And to be clear... one is considered a LOSER when one didn't win. Period.
And all this time I thought it was HRC who lost the election.
nohero said:
As explained in the NY Times this morning (by the way, it's always a good idea to let at least a day go by before deciding you have an opinion on something or someone, even in this instant-information age), under New York law the only way the Working Families Party can change who is on its ballot is if the candidate dies, or moves, or accepts a nomination for a different office. Crowley said that the first two weren't options he'd consider. As for being nominated for a different office, it would be for something minor, some place that he would never consider serving, and in his mind it would be like election fraud.
Crowley endorsed the nominee the night the primary was decided. He's still endorsing the nominee. The attacks against him that came instantly yesterday shouldn't have been made, and everybody should have taken at least a day before commenting on this (see my earlier parenthetical about "always a good idea").
No new information came out today. It's still Crowley and his spin that he can't get off the ballot because that would maybe be "election fraud" which it is not. The Working Party wants him off the ballot so they can put the winner on there. It is not good for the Democrats to have both names on the ballot--because it could end up a split vote against the Republican. This is what Crowley supposedly believes the Democrats should do. Bill Lipton tried to work with him and this was his remarks to the Daily Beast:
""It is disappointing that Crowley has refused to vacate the Working Families Party ballot line," he said. "He chose not to show Ocasio-Cortez and the WFP respect by allowing us to put Ocasio-Cortez on our ballot line. WFP is giving all we have to electing Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive insurgents all across the nation. The only remaining way for Crowley to do the right thing is to switch his residency to Virginia, where his family resides and his children already go to school. It would fix the problem he created in an instant. Queens County Democrats practically wrote the book on election law so it's hard to imagine they don't know that there are standard procedures to remove a candidate from the ballot that have been approved by the New York State Court of Appeals."
author said:
kibbegirl said:And all this time I thought it was HRC who lost the election.
@nan girl, who has the time to read your monologue's? But we appreciate your passion, that's for sure!
In the terminology of hip hop, @nan is clearly stanning for Bernie. That means, no matter what proof is put out -- PROOF from legitimate sources, people, etc., those who adore Bernie and believe he was made to be a political step child, will NEVER believe he simply wasn't a strong enough candidate to win the presidency. Bernie stans are practically the same as Trumpsters.
And to be clear... one is considered a LOSER when one didn't win. Period.
Again, she didn't lose "the election". She won that part of our inane process.
lord_pabulum said:
nan said:No where in this article are there actual statistics proving half of Americans are in or near poverty.
cramer said:Going back to my article:
"The nation’s official poverty rate in 2016 was 12.7 percent, with 40.6 million people in poverty, 2.5 million fewer than in 2015. The 0.8 percentage point decrease from 2015 to 2016 represents the second consecutive annual decline in poverty. The 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from the 2007 rate (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession."
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/income-povery.html
" . . .The Definitions of Poverty are Way out of Date
The poverty threshold is still based on a formula from the 1960s, when food expenses were a much greater part of the family budget. It hasn't kept up with other major expenses. Since 1980, food costs have gone up by 100%, housing 250%, health care 500%, and college tuition 1,000%.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) says, "If the same basic methodology developed in the early 1960s was applied today, the poverty thresholds would be over three times higher than the current thresholds." Three times higher!
The median household income in the U.S. in 2016 was $59,039. The Economic Policy Institute's 2015 Family Budget Calculator determined that the median budget for a two-parent, two-child family is $63,741. As CRS concluded, that's about three times higher than the current poverty threshold.
In 2014, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, median household expenses were $36,800, against income of about $54,000. But that includes very little for wealth-building investments, such as short- and long-term savings, college education, and life insurance. After accounting for annual outlays for these essential and/or typical family expenses, the median household in the lower third was $2,300 in debt. For the middle third of households, which reaches well into the "middle class," only $6,000 remained for wealth-building and other discretionary expenses. That $6,000 dissipates quickly. Says Pew Research: "Because income is measured before taxes, some families will have had even less slack in their budgets than this figure implies." . . . "
I thought this part did that:
The median household income in the U.S. in 2016 was $59,039. The Economic Policy Institute's 2015 Family Budget Calculator determined that the median budget for a two-parent, two-child family is $63,741. As CRS concluded, that's about three times higher than the current poverty threshold.
In 2014, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, median household expenses were $36,800, against income of about $54,000. But that includes very little for wealth-building investments, such as short- and long-term savings, college education, and life insurance. After accounting for annual outlays for these essential and/or typical family expenses, the median household in the lower third was $2,300 in debt. For the middle third of households, which reaches well into the "middle class," only $6,000 remained for wealth-building and other discretionary expenses. That $6,000 dissipates quickly. Says Pew Research: "Because income is measured before taxes, some families will have had even less slack in their budgets than this figure implies." . . . "
LOST said:
Nan, Guess you did not read this:
LOST said:
According to Jerry H. Goldfeder, an election lawyer and an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law, the simplest answer is the state’s “extremely peculiar election laws.”
With the exception of extreme circumstances like death or moving out of state, a non–write-in candidate who wins a nomination can only be removed from the ballot if he or she accepts the same party’s nomination in another race, typically a lower-profile contest in another part of New York dominated by another party. The Working Families Party requested Crowley do just that after he lost the Democratic primary, but he reportedly refused. On Thursday, as Ocasio-Cortez’s complaint was gaining traction on Twitter, Crowley explained that he believes such a switch would be akin to “election fraud.”
Goldfeder said jumping races isn’t election fraud in the legal sense of the term but that the congressman’s logic makes sense. “He wants to avoid a fraud on the voters,” Goldfeder told Slate. “He wants to avoid the charade of running for another office [that he doesn’t want].” Goldfeder added that he sees no reason to suspect Crowley is plotting a third-party challenge against Ocasio-Cortez. “He’s endorsed her; he’s going to work for her,” Goldfeder said. “The district is going to elect her.”
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:It’s an arcane law. It’s just possible that Bill Lipton was not aware of it.
That's what Crowley said but the head of the Working Families Party asked him if he wanted his name removed and he said "No." Why would the head of the WFP ask him if he wanted it removed if it was not possible?
See my answer to nohero above.
DaveSchmidt said:
lord_pabulum said:Also, for the record: Since 1980, the poverty income threshold for a family of four has gone up by 200%. Food and housing account for about 46% of a typical household’s expenses, according to the BLS; health care about 8%. (College tuition seems like a red herring here, because among all the families out there, relatively few have children that age or approaching it, and low-income families aren’t charged the sticker price.)
nan said:No where in this article are there actual statistics proving half of Americans are in or near poverty.
The poverty threshold is still based on a formula from the 1960s, when food expenses were a much greater part of the family budget. It hasn't kept up with other major expenses. Since 1980, food costs have gone up by 100%, housing 250%, health care 500%, and college tuition 1,000%.
Here is the link again to the full article I was excerpting from above. It goes into more detail:
nan said:
LOST said:See my answer to nohero above.
Nan, Guess you did not read this:
LOST said:
According to Jerry H. Goldfeder, an election lawyer and an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law, the simplest answer is the state’s “extremely peculiar election laws.”
With the exception of extreme circumstances like death or moving out of state, a non–write-in candidate who wins a nomination can only be removed from the ballot if he or she accepts the same party’s nomination in another race, typically a lower-profile contest in another part of New York dominated by another party. The Working Families Party requested Crowley do just that after he lost the Democratic primary, but he reportedly refused. On Thursday, as Ocasio-Cortez’s complaint was gaining traction on Twitter, Crowley explained that he believes such a switch would be akin to “election fraud.”
Goldfeder said jumping races isn’t election fraud in the legal sense of the term but that the congressman’s logic makes sense. “He wants to avoid a fraud on the voters,” Goldfeder told Slate. “He wants to avoid the charade of running for another office [that he doesn’t want].” Goldfeder added that he sees no reason to suspect Crowley is plotting a third-party challenge against Ocasio-Cortez. “He’s endorsed her; he’s going to work for her,” Goldfeder said. “The district is going to elect her.”
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:It’s an arcane law. It’s just possible that Bill Lipton was not aware of it.
That's what Crowley said but the head of the Working Families Party asked him if he wanted his name removed and he said "No." Why would the head of the WFP ask him if he wanted it removed if it was not possible?
It would be nice if the winners were patient and worked with Crowley, instead of using this as another opportunity to stir people up.
nan said:
nohero said:No new information came out today. It's still Crowley and his spin that he can't get off the ballot because that would maybe be "election fraud" which it is not. The Working Party wants him off the ballot so they can put the winner on there. It is not good for the Democrats to have both names on the ballot--because it could end up a split vote against the Republican. This is what Crowley supposedly believes the Democrats should do. Bill Lipton tried to work with him and this was his remarks to the Daily Beast:
As explained in the NY Times this morning (by the way, it's always a good idea to let at least a day go by before deciding you have an opinion on something or someone, even in this instant-information age), under New York law the only way the Working Families Party can change who is on its ballot is if the candidate dies, or moves, or accepts a nomination for a different office. Crowley said that the first two weren't options he'd consider. As for being nominated for a different office, it would be for something minor, some place that he would never consider serving, and in his mind it would be like election fraud.
Crowley endorsed the nominee the night the primary was decided. He's still endorsing the nominee. The attacks against him that came instantly yesterday shouldn't have been made, and everybody should have taken at least a day before commenting on this (see my earlier parenthetical about "always a good idea").
""It is disappointing that Crowley has refused to vacate the Working Families Party ballot line," he said. "He chose not to show Ocasio-Cortez and the WFP respect by allowing us to put Ocasio-Cortez on our ballot line. WFP is giving all we have to electing Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive insurgents all across the nation. The only remaining way for Crowley to do the right thing is to switch his residency to Virginia, where his family resides and his children already go to school. It would fix the problem he created in an instant. Queens County Democrats practically wrote the book on election law so it's hard to imagine they don't know that there are standard procedures to remove a candidate from the ballot that have been approved by the New York State Court of Appeals."
There is so much nastiness in that summary, and for no reason. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won, Crowley endorsed her, and instead of working through this the nastiness continues. Not the way to work together to win.
kibbegirl said:
@nan girl, who has the time to read your monologue's? But we appreciate your passion, that's for sure!
In the terminology of hip hop, @nan is clearly stanning for Bernie. That means, no matter what proof is put out -- PROOF from legitimate sources, people, etc., those who adore Bernie and believe he was made to be a political step child, will NEVER believe he simply wasn't a strong enough candidate to win the presidency. Bernie stans are practically the same as Trumpsters.
And to be clear... one is considered a LOSER when one didn't win. Period.
OK, so you personally attacked me and in that attack asked for specific details to support what I had said. I provided those to you and now you say you don't have time to read them, but you have fresh personal attacks where you cite supposed fact-based evidence, but not supplied.
But, I am curious if you consider Hillary Clinton a loser because based on your definition she sure is and she lost to an orange psycho. That's worse than what Bernie did. She is a loser's loser.
nohero said:
nan said:There is so much nastiness in that summary, and for no reason. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won, Crowley endorsed her, and instead of working through this the nastiness continues. Not the way to work together to win.
nohero said:No new information came out today. It's still Crowley and his spin that he can't get off the ballot because that would maybe be "election fraud" which it is not. The Working Party wants him off the ballot so they can put the winner on there. It is not good for the Democrats to have both names on the ballot--because it could end up a split vote against the Republican. This is what Crowley supposedly believes the Democrats should do. Bill Lipton tried to work with him and this was his remarks to the Daily Beast:
As explained in the NY Times this morning (by the way, it's always a good idea to let at least a day go by before deciding you have an opinion on something or someone, even in this instant-information age), under New York law the only way the Working Families Party can change who is on its ballot is if the candidate dies, or moves, or accepts a nomination for a different office. Crowley said that the first two weren't options he'd consider. As for being nominated for a different office, it would be for something minor, some place that he would never consider serving, and in his mind it would be like election fraud.
Crowley endorsed the nominee the night the primary was decided. He's still endorsing the nominee. The attacks against him that came instantly yesterday shouldn't have been made, and everybody should have taken at least a day before commenting on this (see my earlier parenthetical about "always a good idea").
""It is disappointing that Crowley has refused to vacate the Working Families Party ballot line," he said. "He chose not to show Ocasio-Cortez and the WFP respect by allowing us to put Ocasio-Cortez on our ballot line. WFP is giving all we have to electing Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive insurgents all across the nation. The only remaining way for Crowley to do the right thing is to switch his residency to Virginia, where his family resides and his children already go to school. It would fix the problem he created in an instant. Queens County Democrats practically wrote the book on election law so it's hard to imagine they don't know that there are standard procedures to remove a candidate from the ballot that have been approved by the New York State Court of Appeals."
The way for them to work together to win is for him to get off the ballot.
nan said:
nohero said:The way for them to work together to win is for him to get off the ballot.
There is so much nastiness in that summary, and for no reason. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won, Crowley endorsed her, and instead of working through this the nastiness continues. Not the way to work together to win.
I defer to the esteemed Mr. Sbenois' earlier discussion.
nan said:
DaveSchmidt said:Here is the link again to the full article I was excerpting from above. It goes into more detail:
Also, for the record: Since 1980, the poverty income threshold for a family of four has gone up by 200%. Food and housing account for about 46% of a typical household’s expenses, according to the BLS; health care about 8%. (College tuition seems like a red herring here, because among all the families out there, relatively few have children that age or approaching it, and low-income families aren’t charged the sticker price.)
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/10/16/yes-half-americans-are-or-near-poverty-heres-more-evidence
I had read the article when you linked to it the first time, nan.
nan said:
lord_pabulum said:I thought this part did that:
nan said:No where in this article are there actual statistics proving half of Americans are in or near poverty.
cramer said:Going back to my article:
"The nation’s official poverty rate in 2016 was 12.7 percent, with 40.6 million people in poverty, 2.5 million fewer than in 2015. The 0.8 percentage point decrease from 2015 to 2016 represents the second consecutive annual decline in poverty. The 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from the 2007 rate (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession."
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/income-povery.html
" . . .The Definitions of Poverty are Way out of Date
The poverty threshold is still based on a formula from the 1960s, when food expenses were a much greater part of the family budget. It hasn't kept up with other major expenses. Since 1980, food costs have gone up by 100%, housing 250%, health care 500%, and college tuition 1,000%.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) says, "If the same basic methodology developed in the early 1960s was applied today, the poverty thresholds would be over three times higher than the current thresholds." Three times higher!
The median household income in the U.S. in 2016 was $59,039. The Economic Policy Institute's 2015 Family Budget Calculator determined that the median budget for a two-parent, two-child family is $63,741. As CRS concluded, that's about three times higher than the current poverty threshold.
In 2014, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, median household expenses were $36,800, against income of about $54,000. But that includes very little for wealth-building investments, such as short- and long-term savings, college education, and life insurance. After accounting for annual outlays for these essential and/or typical family expenses, the median household in the lower third was $2,300 in debt. For the middle third of households, which reaches well into the "middle class," only $6,000 remained for wealth-building and other discretionary expenses. That $6,000 dissipates quickly. Says Pew Research: "Because income is measured before taxes, some families will have had even less slack in their budgets than this figure implies." . . . "
The median household income in the U.S. in 2016 was $59,039. The Economic Policy Institute's 2015 Family Budget Calculator determined that the median budget for a two-parent, two-child family is $63,741. As CRS concluded, that's about three times higher than the current poverty threshold.
In 2014, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, median household expenses were $36,800, against income of about $54,000. But that includes very little for wealth-building investments, such as short- and long-term savings, college education, and life insurance. After accounting for annual outlays for these essential and/or typical family expenses, the median household in the lower third was $2,300 in debt. For the middle third of households, which reaches well into the "middle class," only $6,000 remained for wealth-building and other discretionary expenses. That $6,000 dissipates quickly. Says Pew Research: "Because income is measured before taxes, some families will have had even less slack in their budgets than this figure implies." . . . "
Where? What poverty line number is being used to determine half the US population is at or near poverty? The headline for this article should have read "Half the US population doesn't have the budget for wealth-building investments, college education and life insurance".
drummerboy said:
author said:Again, she didn't lose "the election". She won that part of our inane process.
kibbegirl said:And all this time I thought it was HRC who lost the election.
@nan girl, who has the time to read your monologue's? But we appreciate your passion, that's for sure!
In the terminology of hip hop, @nan is clearly stanning for Bernie. That means, no matter what proof is put out -- PROOF from legitimate sources, people, etc., those who adore Bernie and believe he was made to be a political step child, will NEVER believe he simply wasn't a strong enough candidate to win the presidency. Bernie stans are practically the same as Trumpsters.
And to be clear... one is considered a LOSER when one didn't win. Period.
The election is won or lost in the Electoral College as established by the Founding Fathers.
There is no asterik or consolation prize for coming in second in the vote that decides the winner.
She lost.
What the Honorable Sbenois and I have in common with respect to this discussion is knowing something about the nature of politics in the Bronx.
Essentially the November General Election does not count! (Come to think of it, it's like TC elections in Maplewood). The Democratic Candidate wins. They don't even campaign once they win the Primary.
And the suggestion that the Chairman of the Queens County Democratic Chair should move to Virginia is absurd.
LOST said:
What the Honorable Sbenois and I have in common with respect to this discussion is knowing something about the nature of politics in the Bronx.
Essentially the November General Election does not count! (Come to think of it, it's like TC elections in Maplewood). The Democratic Candidate wins. They don't even campaign once they win the Primary.
And the suggestion that the Chairman of the Queens County Democratic Chair should move to Virginia is absurd.
He already lives in Virginia. That is what is really absurd.
nan said:
nohero said:The way for them to work together to win is for him to get off the ballot.
nan said:There is so much nastiness in that summary, and for no reason. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won, Crowley endorsed her, and instead of working through this the nastiness continues. Not the way to work together to win.
nohero said:No new information came out today. It's still Crowley and his spin that he can't get off the ballot because that would maybe be "election fraud" which it is not. The Working Party wants him off the ballot so they can put the winner on there. It is not good for the Democrats to have both names on the ballot--because it could end up a split vote against the Republican. This is what Crowley supposedly believes the Democrats should do. Bill Lipton tried to work with him and this was his remarks to the Daily Beast:
As explained in the NY Times this morning (by the way, it's always a good idea to let at least a day go by before deciding you have an opinion on something or someone, even in this instant-information age), under New York law the only way the Working Families Party can change who is on its ballot is if the candidate dies, or moves, or accepts a nomination for a different office. Crowley said that the first two weren't options he'd consider. As for being nominated for a different office, it would be for something minor, some place that he would never consider serving, and in his mind it would be like election fraud.
Crowley endorsed the nominee the night the primary was decided. He's still endorsing the nominee. The attacks against him that came instantly yesterday shouldn't have been made, and everybody should have taken at least a day before commenting on this (see my earlier parenthetical about "always a good idea").
""It is disappointing that Crowley has refused to vacate the Working Families Party ballot line," he said. "He chose not to show Ocasio-Cortez and the WFP respect by allowing us to put Ocasio-Cortez on our ballot line. WFP is giving all we have to electing Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive insurgents all across the nation. The only remaining way for Crowley to do the right thing is to switch his residency to Virginia, where his family resides and his children already go to school. It would fix the problem he created in an instant. Queens County Democrats practically wrote the book on election law so it's hard to imagine they don't know that there are standard procedures to remove a candidate from the ballot that have been approved by the New York State Court of Appeals."
Absolutely. And would you agree that his supporters shouldn't spend the next two years whining about his loss?
And that they should fully support her in the upcoming election without looking for conspiracy videos from Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski and everyone else on youtube who can afford a webcam and a microphone and thinks that that makes them Edward R. Murrow?
Would you basically agree that they should do the exact opposite of what you and the rest of the Bernie Davidians have done?
sbenois said:
nan said:Absolutely. And would you agree that his supporters shouldn't spend the next two years whining about his loss?
nohero said:The way for them to work together to win is for him to get off the ballot.
nan said:There is so much nastiness in that summary, and for no reason. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won, Crowley endorsed her, and instead of working through this the nastiness continues. Not the way to work together to win.
nohero said:No new information came out today. It's still Crowley and his spin that he can't get off the ballot because that would maybe be "election fraud" which it is not. The Working Party wants him off the ballot so they can put the winner on there. It is not good for the Democrats to have both names on the ballot--because it could end up a split vote against the Republican. This is what Crowley supposedly believes the Democrats should do. Bill Lipton tried to work with him and this was his remarks to the Daily Beast:
As explained in the NY Times this morning (by the way, it's always a good idea to let at least a day go by before deciding you have an opinion on something or someone, even in this instant-information age), under New York law the only way the Working Families Party can change who is on its ballot is if the candidate dies, or moves, or accepts a nomination for a different office. Crowley said that the first two weren't options he'd consider. As for being nominated for a different office, it would be for something minor, some place that he would never consider serving, and in his mind it would be like election fraud.
Crowley endorsed the nominee the night the primary was decided. He's still endorsing the nominee. The attacks against him that came instantly yesterday shouldn't have been made, and everybody should have taken at least a day before commenting on this (see my earlier parenthetical about "always a good idea").
""It is disappointing that Crowley has refused to vacate the Working Families Party ballot line," he said. "He chose not to show Ocasio-Cortez and the WFP respect by allowing us to put Ocasio-Cortez on our ballot line. WFP is giving all we have to electing Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive insurgents all across the nation. The only remaining way for Crowley to do the right thing is to switch his residency to Virginia, where his family resides and his children already go to school. It would fix the problem he created in an instant. Queens County Democrats practically wrote the book on election law so it's hard to imagine they don't know that there are standard procedures to remove a candidate from the ballot that have been approved by the New York State Court of Appeals."
And that they should fully support her in the upcoming election without looking for conspiracy videos from Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski and everyone else on youtube who can afford a webcam and a microphone and thinks that that makes them Edward R. Murrow?
Would you basically agree that they should do the exact opposite of what you and the rest of the Bernie Davidians have done?
You are good at personal attacks. Seeing the big picture or having real insight, not so much. It is not about Bernie. There are plenty of Progressives who don't like Bernie. What we really don't like are the establishment politicians who take money from business interests and then vote as their donors demand. This has led to a dire situation in the United States, the richest country in the world, where half the people are either poor or almost poor with limited resources for healthcare, education, and decent infrastructure. Things are so bad that some people began to consider that Donald Trump might be a good choice for President. This is a big part of why he got elected, not Bernie, Jill, Susan, or Russia (the scapegoats).
The mainstream news supports the establishment and rarely counters the pro-war, pro-business narrative. That's why there has been a huge proliferation of YouTube news outlets and commentaries. Kyle Kulinski and JImmy Dore (and TYT) are popular and respected voices analysing the news from a Progressive viewpoint. They are not conspiracy nuts like Rachel Maddow. There are many others as well, if you don't like that group. The reason these people have sucessful shows is because the mainstream media is so bad. Anyone who still gets all of their news from CNN, MSNBC, NPR, or FOX should branch out and also listen to alternative voices on the web. I try to listen to many sources, including those I disagree with. Might be a good idea for you and help broaden that narrow crack of view you have got there. Not holding my breath though.
nan said:
LOST said:He already lives in Virginia. That is what is really absurd.
What the Honorable Sbenois and I have in common with respect to this discussion is knowing something about the nature of politics in the Bronx.
Essentially the November General Election does not count! (Come to think of it, it's like TC elections in Maplewood). The Democratic Candidate wins. They don't even campaign once they win the Primary.
And the suggestion that the Chairman of the Queens County Democratic Chair should move to Virginia is absurd.
Hey, that's more of the nastiness that I was writing about before. Way to go.
nohero said:
nan said:Hey, that's more of the nastiness that I was writing about before. Way to go.
LOST said:He already lives in Virginia. That is what is really absurd.
What the Honorable Sbenois and I have in common with respect to this discussion is knowing something about the nature of politics in the Bronx.
Essentially the November General Election does not count! (Come to think of it, it's like TC elections in Maplewood). The Democratic Candidate wins. They don't even campaign once they win the Primary.
And the suggestion that the Chairman of the Queens County Democratic Chair should move to Virginia is absurd.
You know what is really nasty? When establishment Democrats pretend to care about unity and beating Republicans, and helping people, but they really only care about getting in candidates who will do the bidding of donors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcgPyKt-ysY&t=2s
I can beat the head of DS against a wall, but I can’t beat that logic.