Bernie Sanders for President

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.

What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.

Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow.
My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent.
Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.

Suggestion 1: I hope this is tongue in cheek because we've had 50MM voters or so in the primaries and any accusations of malfeasance has been on the margins. If the system could only support the 'establishment', then why did Trump win when the whole establishment was against him? The same electioneers operate the Dem and GOP primary. The reality is that Trump won fair and square and so did Clinton. She won the pledged and direct vote. Sanders supporters just cannot deal with facts that they don't like.

Suggestion 2: Sorry that this process bothers you up in Canada. Again, we are essentially a collection of states. Only the parties can normalize the process. But what are the differences really? There are three differences that could be normalized A: Kill the caucuses which are inherently unfair B: Allow or disallow independents from voting and C: normalize the period allowed to register or de-register from a party. I'd be okay with all of this. Not sure how much of a difference this would have made, but maybe on the margins, certainly in some states

Suggestion 3: Say you're the GOP. They started with 16 candidates. How do you get from 16 to 2? How do the Dems go from 4 to 2 (O'Malley and Webb). Neither Sanders or Trump would have made the cut. Is this more Democratic? And if you vote at once, then you've amplified in a different way the issue that exists in the general election. All the campaigning is done in a handful of states for teh GE (OH, FL VA CO, etc.). The same phenomenon would happen but in different states under your process. All the campaigning would be in TX, FL, NY, CA,. 3/4 of the states would never see a candidate and retail politics would be dead. I don't think the state committees would ever go for this.

Feel free to rebut. This is a good conversation.

PJ_Soul

Suggestion 1 is how Canada does it and it works fine, and that is why I suggested it.
Suggestion 2 would make it so that all Americans actually know wtf is going on.
Suggestion 3, well, I don't give a shit how hard it is for the GOP (or any party) to decide on nominees - they would have to do it. But The most obvious method would be to have an internal vote. They can whip up support for each nominee any way they choose (assuming it's legal). This method would at least present nominees to the citizens that represent the party. That is really all that's required. And I meant a national nomination vote. A real one. 1 vote = 1 vote. If the nominees all focus on the states with big populations fine - they all would do that, and it would even the playing field.
But FWIW, I didn't suggest any of these things under the assumption that anyone in American politics would actually go for them, lol, because none of them could be rigged in politicians' favours outside of the internal party votes. The whole idea behind my suggestions would be precisely so that retail politics would die, hahaha.

Free

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.

What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.

Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow.
My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent.
Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.

Suggestion 1: I hope this is tongue in cheek because we've had 50MM voters or so in the primaries and any accusations of malfeasance has been on the margins. If the system could only support the 'establishment', then why did Trump win when the whole establishment was against him? The same electioneers operate the Dem and GOP primary. The reality is that Trump won fair and square and so did Clinton. She won the pledged and direct vote. Sanders supporters just cannot deal with facts that they don't like.

Suggestion 2: Sorry that this process bothers you up in Canada. Again, we are essentially a collection of states. Only the parties can normalize the process. But what are the differences really? There are three differences that could be normalized A: Kill the caucuses which are inherently unfair B: Allow or disallow independents from voting and C: normalize the period allowed to register or de-register from a party. I'd be okay with all of this. Not sure how much of a difference this would have made, but maybe on the margins, certainly in some states

Suggestion 3: Say you're the GOP. They started with 16 candidates. How do you get from 16 to 2? How do the Dems go from 4 to 2 (O'Malley and Webb). Neither Sanders or Trump would have made the cut. Is this more Democratic? And if you vote at once, then you've amplified in a different way the issue that exists in the general election. All the campaigning is done in a handful of states for teh GE (OH, FL VA CO, etc.). The same phenomenon would happen but in different states under your process. All the campaigning would be in TX, FL, NY, CA,. 3/4 of the states would never see a candidate and retail politics would be dead. I don't think the state committees would ever go for this.

Feel free to rebut. This is a good conversation.

Funny, I provide credible links explaining the process, where are yours?

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Suggestion 1 is how Canada does it and it works fine, and that is why I suggested it.
Suggestion 2 would make it so that all Americans actually know wtf is going on.
Suggestion 3, well, I don't give a shit how hard it is for the GOP (or any party) to decide on nominees - they would have to do it. But The most obvious method would be to have an internal vote. They can whip up support for each nominee any way they choose (assuming it's legal). This method would at least present nominees to the citizens that represent the party. That is really all that's required. And I meant a national nomination vote. A real one. 1 vote = 1 vote. If the nominees all focus on the states with big populations fine - they all would do that, and it would even the playing field.
But FWIW, I didn't suggest any of these things under the assumption that anyone in American politics would actually go for them, lol, because none of them could be rigged in politicians' favours outside of the internal party votes. The whole idea behind my suggestions would be precisely so that retail politics would die, hahaha.

Your process in Canada would never had Bernie get out of a first ballot. Isn't that decidedly less democratic?

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Suggestion 1 is how Canada does it and it works fine, and that is why I suggested it.
Suggestion 2 would make it so that all Americans actually know wtf is going on.
Suggestion 3, well, I don't give a shit how hard it is for the GOP (or any party) to decide on nominees - they would have to do it. But The most obvious method would be to have an internal vote. They can whip up support for each nominee any way they choose (assuming it's legal). This method would at least present nominees to the citizens that represent the party. That is really all that's required. And I meant a national nomination vote. A real one. 1 vote = 1 vote. If the nominees all focus on the states with big populations fine - they all would do that, and it would even the playing field.
But FWIW, I didn't suggest any of these things under the assumption that anyone in American politics would actually go for them, lol, because none of them could be rigged in politicians' favours outside of the internal party votes. The whole idea behind my suggestions would be precisely so that retail politics would die, hahaha.

Your process in Canada would never had Bernie get out of a first ballot. Isn't that decidedly less democratic?

Bernie would be the leader of the third party in Canada.

PJ_Soul

(Or the 4th or 5th party ).

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.

An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.

PJfanwillneverleave1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.

An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.

Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.

EarlWelsh

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.

An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.

Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.

How do you figure?

PJfanwillneverleave1

EarlWelsh said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.

An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.

Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.

How do you figure?

He is in a minor but necessary role.

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.

It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.

it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.

You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.

I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.

An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.

Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.

Yes, he is!

dignin

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

brianlux

dignin said:

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.

dignin

brianlux said:

dignin said:

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.

Thanks for the answer.

brianlux

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.

Thanks for the answer.

Sorry, I know... too honest.

Free

brianlux said:

dignin said:

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.

I agree w/ Brian.

benjs

Free said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.

I agree w/ Brian.

Not to be a pessimist, but I think the fact that Trump is all but certain to be the Republican nominee, does put the likelihood of Clinton as President regrettably. I wonder if she's going to shout her addresses to the public at increasing volume and intensity as she reaches the ends of sentences the way she always seems to at her rallies.

EarlWelsh

dignin said:

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

I don't think that would sway me. I also don't think he'd run as her VP. It would go back on so many things he's said. I may be wrong though.

Free

She could do what Obama did with her, and give him a good position in her cabinet, but I doubt that will happen either. Obama is a much kinder competitor.

dignin

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html

I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.

Thanks for the answer.

Sorry, I know... too honest.

Haha, I was just happy to get an honest response.