She hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning this primary.
However, that's often not the point. If you are progressive (conservative) there is a strong incentive to challenge incumbents on your own side because any impact you have on the ideas discussed is likely to work in your favor; and indeed it's possible the incumbent agrees with you on those issues but just wants political cover to acquiesce. So I'm not really troubled if Cuomo happens to discover a more progressive streak or makes some concessions even though he's going to pulverize her come polling day.
I think it would be accurate to say that Nixon has run an unusually strong campaign and done an unusually good job of calling attention to real issues, even knowing she has no chance of winning and isn't a serious candidate by that standard.
[Note: I am not a resident of NY State and can't legally vote in the state I live in.]
I mean Joe Crowley would have probably been 40 points ahead if that race had been polled. I realize it's not the same, but state polls in midterm primaries must have an enormous margin of error.
- Pollsters often use party allegiance to sanity check their results, but that's irrelevant in a primary
- No one really pays attention to a primary early on (unlike presidential campaigns, which start earlier and earlier every cycle), so early polling is not representative of final voting
- Pollsters have to guesstimate how many voters of a certain type will show up at the polls, but nonpresidential primaries are super low turnout historically especially in noncompetitive areas, and some disgruntled voters for insurgent campaigns can upset this prediction
- Pollsters have a hard time reaching young people and minorities, who are usually not on landlines and are less likely pick up numbers from strangers
I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't the whole problem that winning elections is heavily dependent on money?
So even you concede that it's not totally dependent. Boiling elections down to one problem is a gross oversimplification. Yeah you need money, but you also need a platform people want to vote for. You need good faith with your electorate.
What good is cash if you've alienated your base? What good is cash if you've already got 32x more than your opponent (Cuomo's $16MM to Nixon's $500k)?
Right now, Cuomo's at a greater risk losing progressive votes than running out of money. The memories of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez v Joe Crowley are still fresh in everyone's mind. Money didn't help Crowley there...
0 - https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/cuomo-spent-8-million-in-three...
Many fewer people vote in the primary, but perhaps those people are harder to reach, or perhaps who shows up depends heavily on money (or perhaps something else).
Also, I observe that politicians want money for more than their elections. They provide funds from their treasure chest to other politicians and groups. I wonder how much that use of money affects their fundraising and money's influence on them. (I think it seems like a source of corruption, and that money donated for the election should be spent on it or returned.)
So running too left can win you the primary but lose the general.
Cuomo is trying to move left but not too left to leave him vulnerable to a state challenge
From a systems point of view, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of electing prosecutors for this reason -- it might be better if they were appointed and held to basic broad metrics like violent crime rates and quality of life changes versus costs of incarceration. In fact, it might be better if there was less media attention placed on prosecutors in general, as this is often a stepping stone to other types of political office. I'd even go so far as to ban them from higher office for a period of time after their term is up. It just seems like the pursuit of justice is the last thing you want to politicize, and if it wasn't politicized, but there was an emphasis on efficiency, we would never have spent so much money on low level crimes in the first place.
The statute of limitations runs from the date of the alleged offense to when charges are filed; cases may not be resolved timely after charges are filed, e.g., if a defendant flees and prevents the case from proceeding to trial.
These kinds of things occurred from time to time in large waves like this. It’s usually a win for all parties, DA/prosecutors clear cases, judges get old cases off their docks, Police close these old warrants, some politician somewhere takes credit...the real irony some of these defendants will never know the difference.
If you have extra money, donate to those politicians. Even a $10 donation is helpful.
https://tonyevers.com/plan/ (ctrl-f marijuana)
There is no future for prohibition of cannabis.
There is no reason to lay your life on the line for pot. It’s ridiculous to hang someone for that. Too bad people can’t claim it’s even mildly addictive after years and years of saying it isn’t.
Punishment and crime obviously don’t fit. But... He chose to have illegal drugs in his country, he wasn’t framed. He knew how illegal it was.
Oh yes the police had to arrest him. The judges just apply the law anyway. And the executioners hanging him will be following orders. Looks like the only guy left to be be blamed here is the guy, because he had the choice, didn't he?
Let's turn this around!
Everyone of those involved knows what that law does. All of them could have walked away and said: "Fuck that law, I'm not enforcing it." But they chose to enforce it.
Unjustifiable violence must never be blamed on the victim. Especially if perpetrated by a government.
You'd like to think. But then those people would hang too. Sure if life in Malaysia were completely horrible there might eventually be a revolution all the way up the chain of command, but it's not. They live by laws that were enacted in a purportedly representative system of government.
When travelling, you need to know and take seriously the local laws and customs. Your naively idealistic view of "fuck that" won't save you.
I don't believe it.
Are you saying people in Malaysia are hanged over quitting their jobs? That would truly be horrible.
Edit: At no point did I advise going against the law of a country. I'm just putting the blame where it belongs.
Yea, I mean, a tenant of a just society is equal enforcement of the law.
>All of them could have walked away and said: "Fuck that law, I'm not enforcing it."
That's not a goal. That's a serious problem. Even if you think the law is unjust. You need to change the law, you can't just not enforce it.
You're arguing for something you would be horrified to have.
And yes selective enforcement is a problem. But I want the people in charge to not enforce that law at all: They must refuse to arrest, judge, or kill based on that law. Which is not selective enforcement. They don't choose whom to apply it to, they just don't apply it at all. Which means everybody is treated equally with regard to that law.
Our history is full of instances where a law was not enforced by those in charge. In some instances we say that not enforcing it was wrong (say, corruption) in others we say that they did right (say, race discrimination). This often set a precedent to changing the law.
Ideally it sure would have been nice if a bad law had never been enacted or if it had been abolished when it soured. But what if it didn't? I'm talking about that. Real societies where bad laws do real damage.
It's barely scratching the surface of justice reform, however. The laws still remain on the books; they're just selectively choosing not to enforce them at the moment. More importantly, they're doing nothing to reverse the thousands (possibly millions) of prior convictions.
This is rewarding the people who skipped out on facing prosecution. It's a pragmatic move, and a tiny step in the right direction, but the people most hurt by these insane laws are the ones who did the right thing, faced their charges, and are now sitting in jail or had their lives damaged in ways small and large. They deserve relief far more than the people who managed to avoid getting convicted in the first place.
..that never would've happened if Cuomo didn't feel real heat from Cynthia Nixon.
The New York State political machine is incredibly corrupt and interconnected. And Cuomo himself is more powerful and influential at all levels of state government (which includes country-level positions) than any governor since, well, his father. It's really not unreasonable to suspect he had a hand in this.
What Cuomo wants, Cuomo gets.
He's trying to run up the score to make it look like he has a mandate. If Nixon gets anything close to what Teachout got four years ago, it'll look bad for his 2020 presidential run.
It’s insufficient that these proceedings are dropped when others will continue to serve out sentences for equivalent crimes.
In this case, where the DA has made a blanket pronouncement that the office is not going to prosecute minor drug possession charges, I think there is a stronger argument to apply that retroactively. It seems to me like the right thing to do. But that would need to be done by a judge or perhaps the governor, not the DA. And you'd have to look at each case. There are really very few people serving significant time for simple possession. There's usually large quantities, intent to distribute, weapons or violence, prior offenses, or some other aggravating factors.
The Governor could though.
There's been 5,500 cases in 2017, which is apparently 85% decline compared to pre-2014. So 3k is just over half year's worth.
But that's combined with stopping the possession prosecution this year.
People who believe smoking marijuana shouldn't be illegal may agree with this, but the better path seems to be to change the law. Otherwise, we are letting prosecutors decide which laws will get prosecuted.
I'm not referring to selective prosecution based upon the merits of a case but a prosecutor who can decide to completely stop prosecuting theft, embezzlement, or murder. The end doesn't justify the means.
Because selling weed would interfere with tax laws. DA just punting to save money so they can get themselves some new hemp money satchels for future convictions.