Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Joe Biden may hit another bump on his way to getting on a state’s presidential ballot, with Alabama’s top elections official asserting Tuesday that the president and vice president will miss the deadline to be certified as nominees in the state come November given the timing of the Democratic National Convention.
I’m greatly in favor of anyone pressuring NH over this. There’s no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should get such an outsized roll in deciding who the nominees are, over and over again, every election, for a century. And the people who live in states farther in the primary calendar basically get no say. There should be a rotation of states if anything.
New Hampshire’s state law is ridiculous and unenforceable too, all it would take is another state passing their own law saying, no we go first, and suddenly there is no way both laws could be upheld at the same time, and they’re trying to hopscotch each other pushing farther and farther back in the calendar. Policies like New Hampshire’s law are why we have candidate debates over a year before the actual election! Whole situation is ridiculous.
While I share some of your concerns about the DNC, I’m not gonna shed a tear for the voters in New Hampshire and Iowa that had more say than anyone else in the country about who would be president for a century.
I’m greatly in favor of anyone pressuring NH over this.
…
The only ones that can change NH state law, is the NH state government…
And they’re all Republicans. They ain’t changing the law to help Democrats.
So if you’re saying you’re ok with this, that means you’re ok with disenfranchising all the Democrats in that state for something they have zero control of.
I’m not saying that’s not what you’re doing, it seems like you think it’s perfectly fine.
But it’s incredibly undemocratic and embarrassing to see so many people with your opinion
No that’s incorrect, the party could always have arranged their own nominating contest and still had delegates. There was nothing preventing them from doing that, and that’s what the DNC urged them to do many times. The state cannot stop a political party (a private organization) from picking their own candidates and delegates. For instance, in Nevada the republican party there decided they did not want to line up with the state selected primary date, and held their own caucus instead that did award delegates.
The state democratic party in New Hampshire that chose not to do this (because they believe they should always get to have first say) and the state government that passed this dumb law (for the same reason) are the ones disenfranchising people here. And no, don’t put words in my mouth, I’m not in favor of disenfranchising anyone. The state party should have just held their own nominating contest later so that they would have had delegates. And New Hampshire shouldn’t have the sole authority to determine the presidential election schedule for everyone else. If other states acted like them we’d have a never ending game of who’s primary is actually first.
I’m greatly in favor of anyone pressuring NH over this. There’s no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should get such an outsized roll in deciding who the nominees are, over and over again, every election, for a century. And the people who live in states farther in the primary calendar basically get no say. There should be a rotation of states if anything.
New Hampshire’s state law is ridiculous and unenforceable too, all it would take is another state passing their own law saying, no we go first, and suddenly there is no way both laws could be upheld at the same time, and they’re trying to hopscotch each other pushing farther and farther back in the calendar. Policies like New Hampshire’s law are why we have candidate debates over a year before the actual election! Whole situation is ridiculous.
While I share some of your concerns about the DNC, I’m not gonna shed a tear for the voters in New Hampshire and Iowa that had more say than anyone else in the country about who would be president for a century.
…
The only ones that can change NH state law, is the NH state government…
And they’re all Republicans. They ain’t changing the law to help Democrats.
So if you’re saying you’re ok with this, that means you’re ok with disenfranchising all the Democrats in that state for something they have zero control of.
I’m not saying that’s not what you’re doing, it seems like you think it’s perfectly fine.
But it’s incredibly undemocratic and embarrassing to see so many people with your opinion
No that’s incorrect, the party could always have arranged their own nominating contest and still had delegates. There was nothing preventing them from doing that, and that’s what the DNC urged them to do many times. The state cannot stop a political party (a private organization) from picking their own candidates and delegates. For instance, in Nevada the republican party there decided they did not want to line up with the state selected primary date, and held their own caucus instead that did award delegates.
The state democratic party in New Hampshire that chose not to do this (because they believe they should always get to have first say) and the state government that passed this dumb law (for the same reason) are the ones disenfranchising people here. And no, don’t put words in my mouth, I’m not in favor of disenfranchising anyone. The state party should have just held their own nominating contest later so that they would have had delegates. And New Hampshire shouldn’t have the sole authority to determine the presidential election schedule for everyone else. If other states acted like them we’d have a never ending game of who’s primary is actually first.