 |
 CPCC:6380 | Zeus the Moose ( 691.4546 points)
|
Thu, September 19, 2019 06:43:46 PM UTC0:00
|
Running in PFP and Constitution primaries? That's unique.
Running in PFP and Constitution primaries? That's unique.
|
|
|
|
| CPCC:6380 | Zeus the Moose ( 691.4546 points)
|
Thu, September 19, 2019 07:04:25 PM UTC0:00
|
Really though after Roseanne Barr nothing should surprise me...
Really though after Roseanne Barr nothing should surprise me...
|
|
 |
 I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -256.3187 points)
|
Thu, September 19, 2019 07:07:13 PM UTC0:00
|
He said it's to combat political tribalism outside of the corporate owned duopoly.
He said it's to combat political tribalism outside of the corporate owned duopoly.
|
|
|
|
Yep, because the only thing separating an ostensibly socialist party and a Christian reactionary party is... tribalism...
Yep, because the only thing separating an ostensibly socialist party and a Christian reactionary party is... tribalism...
|
|
|
|
| I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -256.3187 points)
|
Thu, September 19, 2019 07:17:49 PM UTC0:00
|
No he want's to combat our tribalistic Major Party duopoly with a third party coalition working across partisan lines
No he want's to combat our tribalistic Major Party duopoly with a third party coalition working across partisan lines
|
|
|
|
No he want's to combat our tribalistic Major Party duopoly with a third party coalition working across partisan lines
Wouldn't running in two such different parties indicate he has no principles at all?
E Pluribus Unum: No he want's to combat our tribalistic Major Party duopoly with a third party coalition working across partisan lines
Wouldn't running in two such different parties indicate he has no principles at all?
|
|
|
|
| CPCC:6380 | Zeus the Moose ( 691.4546 points)
 x2
|
Thu, September 19, 2019 09:02:46 PM UTC0:00
|
No he want's to combat our tribalistic Major Party duopoly with a third party coalition working across partisan lines
Fair enough from the perspective of working wither other parties to combat harsh and discriminatory ballot access laws, but running joint candidates with no attention paid to the political differences between different parties and organizations is just daft.
E Pluribus Unum: No he want's to combat our tribalistic Major Party duopoly with a third party coalition working across partisan lines
Fair enough from the perspective of working wither other parties to combat harsh and discriminatory ballot access laws, but running joint candidates with no attention paid to the political differences between different parties and organizations is just daft.
|
|
|
|
| I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -256.3187 points)
|
Thu, September 19, 2019 10:07:48 PM UTC0:00
|
Wouldn't running in two such different parties indicate he has no principles at all?
Look at Darcy's page here, while he had a consistent Left-Wing Ideology before April 2012, but as of now the only consistent political position he has is wanting to strengthen Third Parties in the US. I commend him for that but it seems he's sacrificed other political views he once had, like going after Andrew Gillum in his gubernatorial for running under implementing Medicare-For-All despite Darcy running to do the same in 2012
My Congressman is a Weiner: Wouldn't running in two such different parties indicate he has no principles at all?
Look at Darcy's page here, while he had a consistent Left-Wing Ideology before April 2012, but as of now the only consistent political position he has is wanting to strengthen Third Parties in the US. I commend him for that but it seems he's sacrificed other political views he once had, like going after Andrew Gillum in his gubernatorial for running under implementing Medicare-For-All despite Darcy running to do the same in 2012
|
|
|
|
| I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -256.3187 points)
|
Sat, October 12, 2019 01:42:15 AM UTC0:00
|
Reportedly Howie Hawkins is seeking the PFP nomination. No citation, but someone told me. More info to follow
Reportedly Howie Hawkins is seeking the PFP nomination. No citation, but someone told me. More info to follow
|
|
|
|
| CPCC:6380 | Zeus the Moose ( 691.4546 points)
|
Mon, October 28, 2019 07:18:21 PM UTC0:00
|
He claimed he was going to at the Socialist Party's national convention, as well as working for the nomination of other "independent left" parties in the US. Specifically, in addition to the PFP, he mentioned the Progressive Party in Oregon, the Labor and United Citizens Parties in South Carolina, and the Progressive and Liberty Union Parties in Vermont.
I believe that the Labor Party lost ballot access in SC after 2018, but all the others could theoretically be pursued. It's also notable that all the states mentioned practice some form of electoral fusion, so even winning the ballot lines of those parties wouldn't preclude Hawkins from being on the Green ballot line as well.
He claimed he was going to at the Socialist Party's national convention, as well as working for the nomination of other "independent left" parties in the US. Specifically, in addition to the PFP, he mentioned the Progressive Party in Oregon, the Labor and United Citizens Parties in South Carolina, and the Progressive and Liberty Union Parties in Vermont.
I believe that the Labor Party lost ballot access in SC after 2018, but all the others could theoretically be pursued. It's also notable that all the states mentioned practice some form of electoral fusion, so even winning the ballot lines of those parties wouldn't preclude Hawkins from being on the Green ballot line as well.
|
|
|
|
| I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -256.3187 points)
|
Mon, October 28, 2019 07:49:16 PM UTC0:00
|
I'm aware of most of the info you said. This nomination might get some contention though
I'm aware of most of the info you said. This nomination might get some contention though
|
|
|
|
| CPCC:6380 | Zeus the Moose ( 691.4546 points)
|
Mon, October 28, 2019 08:58:07 PM UTC0:00
|
That's likely true. PSL have been developing a close working relationship with the Peace and Freedom Party leadership since 2012 so the La Riva campaign has a greater already-existing base among PFP activists than the Hawkins campaign (the fact that La Riva is a California resident I'm sure will help as well).
As for the others:
Progressive (OR): I think he has a pretty good shot at this one. The main potential competition I could see is that if Hawkins doesn't win the Green nomination, then the OR Progs might give their ballot line to whoever that ends up being. I've give Hawkins the edge here.
United Citizens (SC): the main question for the United Citizens Party would be between Hawkins and no nomination, considering it looks like they haven't used their presidential ballot line since SP candidate Walt Brown in 2004 (though iirc they did nominate Obama in 2008 but he declined the nomination). This one could easily go either way.
Progressive (VT): here again I think the main contest is between Hawkins and no nomination, with the possible third option that Sanders wins the Democratic nomination and the VT Progs nominate Sanders as well. Barring that, my lean would be towards no nomination, especially since they haven't had a presidential candidate on their ballot line since Nader's 2000 presidential run.
Liberty Union (VT): this is likely another contest between Hawkins and La Riva. On the one hand, as the SP's candidate Hawkins could have an edge, considering the SP and Liberty Union have historically had a pretty good relationship, with a significant number of Liberty Union people also being members of the Socialist Party. On the other hand, in 2016 La Riva was Liberty Union's presidential candidate rather than Mimi Soltysik, so it's entirely possible that that relationship has shifted, and Hawkins' ostensible position as a Green nominee as well may give Liberty Union members pause. This also seems like a toss-up to me.
That's likely true. PSL have been developing a close working relationship with the Peace and Freedom Party leadership since 2012 so the La Riva campaign has a greater already-existing base among PFP activists than the Hawkins campaign (the fact that La Riva is a California resident I'm sure will help as well).
As for the others:
Progressive (OR): I think he has a pretty good shot at this one. The main potential competition I could see is that if Hawkins doesn't win the Green nomination, then the OR Progs might give their ballot line to whoever that ends up being. I've give Hawkins the edge here.
United Citizens (SC): the main question for the United Citizens Party would be between Hawkins and no nomination, considering it looks like they haven't used their presidential ballot line since SP candidate Walt Brown in 2004 (though iirc they did nominate Obama in 2008 but he declined the nomination). This one could easily go either way.
Progressive (VT): here again I think the main contest is between Hawkins and no nomination, with the possible third option that Sanders wins the Democratic nomination and the VT Progs nominate Sanders as well. Barring that, my lean would be towards no nomination, especially since they haven't had a presidential candidate on their ballot line since Nader's 2000 presidential run.
Liberty Union (VT): this is likely another contest between Hawkins and La Riva. On the one hand, as the SP's candidate Hawkins could have an edge, considering the SP and Liberty Union have historically had a pretty good relationship, with a significant number of Liberty Union people also being members of the Socialist Party. On the other hand, in 2016 La Riva was Liberty Union's presidential candidate rather than Mimi Soltysik, so it's entirely possible that that relationship has shifted, and Hawkins' ostensible position as a Green nominee as well may give Liberty Union members pause. This also seems like a toss-up to me.
|
|
|
