Democrats on the New York Board of Elections on Wednesday appealed a federal judge’s ruling to reinstate the state’s presidential primary.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1307816
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1307816
A monumental waste to massage Yang’s ego. Shut it down.
4 Likes
The also-rans want their participation medals.
5 Likes
2 Likes
Wheres the part where she cited law and engaged in a legal analysis?
3 Likes
“I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.” – Will Rogers
1 Like
They want to be able to declare they’re no longer running to suppress turnout for Biden and capture an outsized delegate count for themselves.
1 Like
This of course is the correct ruling. Assuming this holds we can all thank the federal court system for presuming democracy is important to uphold.
It has been noted 1000x that changing elections last minute is bad.
Surely postponing the election to accommodate mail in as Cuomo indicated he was prioritizing before the state board undercut that was the more correct call.
5 Likes
Except this is not an election. This is a party primary.
6 Likes
Unlike some others, you know better than that.
To answer your own question, you could, of course, read her decision.
Failing that:
“If all but one of the presidential candidates are removed from the ballot and the primary is not held, Delegate Plaintiffs will be deprived of the opportunity to compete for delegate slots and shape the course of events at the Convention, and voters will lose the chance to express their support for delegates who share their views,” she wrote.
2 Likes
To select who participates in an election…
That’s like shutting down voter registration and claiming that you didn’t mess with voting on voting day.
True, but then not really accurate.
4 Likes
Yesterday:
2 Likes
4 Likes
Know better than what? I was criticizing TPM for not highlighting it.
Moreover, what you highlighted is not a legal analysis. It was her determination of the facts in terms of the consequences of cancellation.
Her reasoning there amounts to this: “When candidates drop out of elections, the people who wanted to vote for them lose their chance to vote for them and all that goes with it.” Pretty much a fucking tautology. Yeah, they do lose that chance, and they lose it because the person they were voting for dropped out of the election.
6 Likes
And while Democrats screw around, Trump leads Biden across 6 battleground states.
8https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/donald-trump-leads-joe-biden-by-two-points-across-six-battleground-states/ar-BB13JpW?li=BBnb7Kz
Way to keep your eye on the ball Wang. If Trump is re-elected, Wang can join Nader and Bernie’s B.S. Rape Allegation Team to form the Cutting off Nose to Spite One’s Face Party.
If the only purpose of holding a primary were to pick the Presidential candidate, and there was only one left, then there would seem to be no need to hold it. But the delegates also vote on the party platform and rules.
“We don’t need no stinkin’ primary!”
2 Likes
Can you explain the significance you see in this distinction?
And how do you account for a federal judge having missed it?
Or maybe, unlike some others, she has a clue?
1 Like
In other words, her opinions? lol
1 Like
OK.
That’s why I suggested reading her decision.
Or excerpts I have posted.
1 Like
No.
Yes, that’s the word used for what judges hand down.