I guess that whole "ass kicking" thing works for some people. That's not going to win my vote. In a candidate, I'm looking for intelligence, wisdom, common sense, determination, and commitment to preserving our oceans and land base. I'm not seeing it here.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I guess that whole "ass kicking" thing works for some people. That's not going to win my vote. In a candidate, I'm looking for intelligence, wisdom, common sense, determination, and commitment to preserving our oceans and land base. I'm not seeing it here.
It doesn't appeal to me either... but the lady knows her audience, that's for sure.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
man, this whole system is so fucking complicated. having known zero about this leading up to 2016, it all seems so overwhelming to me. it seems odd, on the surface at least, that superdelegates even exist.
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I have to learn more about this, but somehow the idea of "super delegates" just doesn't sound right. Any thoughts as to the pros and cons?
It allowed party insiders to manipulate results and avoid a "brokered" convention, which could make the party look bad at it's convention on national tv
In 2016, about 10-15% of all delegates were superdelegates, and most were for the establishment Candidate HRC and against Bernie. They usually are comprised of retired politicians and up and coming state and local politicians, eager to support the "insider."
The DNC just passed a rule prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first ballot,which might not have that much impact.
Let's say after all the primaries Bernie is winning the delegate count 45 - 44%. He still does not have over 50% needed to win.
Under the old system, it was possible for HRC to get the majority of super delegates to hand her the nomination on the first ballot. This is still possible, but would need to occur on the second ballot with the new rules.
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?
my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed.
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I have to learn more about this, but somehow the idea of "super delegates" just doesn't sound right. Any thoughts as to the pros and cons?
It allowed party insiders to manipulate results and avoid a "brokered" convention, which could make the party look bad at it's convention on national tv
In 2016, about 10-15% of all delegates were superdelegates, and most were for the establishment Candidate HRC and against Bernie. They usually are comprised of retired politicians and up and coming state and local politicians, eager to support the "insider."
The DNC just passed a rule prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first ballot,which might not have that much impact.
Let's say after all the primaries Bernie is winning the delegate count 45 - 44%. He still does not have over 50% needed to win.
Under the old system, it was possible for HRC to get the majority of super delegates to hand her the nomination on the first ballot. This is still possible, but would need to occur on the second ballot with the new rules.
Thank you! I'll try to digest all that. It sounds too much like chess to me, haha!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?
my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed.
Thanks....... I still don't get how getting rid of superdelegates could be said to lead to populism. And what brand of populism are we talking about anyhow? The real meaning, or the kind that exists in grim reality?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?
my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed.
Thanks....... I still don't get how getting rid of superdelegates could be said to lead to populism. And what brand of populism are we talking about anyhow? The real meaning, or the kind that exists in grim reality?
This is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
I don't understand how populism could be blamed on getting rid of superdelegates, which I think are insane. Can you please explain what you mean?
my understanding is that superdelegates are not held to the will of any voter. they vote for the primary candidate they like best. delegates are there to represent the people that chose them. you get rid of the superdelegates, then the people are represented fully and no "wild card" choices are allowed.
Thanks....... I still don't get how getting rid of superdelegates could be said to lead to populism. And what brand of populism are we talking about anyhow? The real meaning, or the kind that exists in grim reality?
the will of the people.
So the dictionary definition. I gathered that benjs posed that question as though populism is a negative, not a positive, which is why I don't get why getting rid of superdelegates would lead to it in that context. If populism in reality were simply "the will of the people" we certainly wouldn't all be so concerned about it. It's a whole lot more sinister than that in practice.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Why don't we just vote and count up the votes? Or would that be simplifying bureaucrazy too much and making things too plain and simple for this mixed up cracy world?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Why don't we just vote and count up the votes? Or would that be simplifying bureaucrazy too much and making things too plain and simple for this mixed up cracy world?
Why don't the parties just have their own internal nominations and elections for leaders and then tell the public who they chose to run on their behalf, and these parties could just leave all the poor Americans alone FFS. The whole insanely long process of the primaries totally fucks with everyone's head and degrades the office of the president in a re-election cycle, and it's completely unnecessary.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As the superdelegates (elected people, former leaders etc.) will still endorse their favoured candidate during primaries they will have the same level of influence just not in a mathematical tie-breaking way at the end - right?
Why don't we just vote and count up the votes? Or would that be simplifying bureaucrazy too much and making things too plain and simple for this mixed up cracy world?
Why don't the parties just have their own internal nominations and elections for leaders and then tell the public who they chose to run on their behalf, and these parties could just leave all the poor Americans alone FFS. The whole insanely long process of the primaries totally fucks with everyone's head and degrades the office of the president in a re-election cycle, and it's completely unnecessary.
My guess is it, the longer and more complex it all takes, the more TV time, the more ads, the more money someone makes. Just a swag.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Did she have any proof? Oh and does she live in Ohio?
Ocasio Cortez found every one of her endorsements fail. Democrat voters are remaining centrist and somewhat sane, at least in the Midwest.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Female war hero leads new wave of veteran candidates
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/politics/female-veterans-run-for-congress/index.htmlThis is a major structural change shifting the DNC towards populism. Any thoughts on this?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Wayne McBean's girlfriend
www.headstonesband.com
It allowed party insiders to manipulate results and avoid a "brokered" convention, which could make the party look bad at it's convention on national tv
In 2016, about 10-15% of all delegates were superdelegates, and most were for the establishment Candidate HRC and against Bernie. They usually are comprised of retired politicians and up and coming state and local politicians, eager to support the "insider."
The DNC just passed a rule prohibiting superdelegates from voting on the first ballot,which might not have that much impact.
Let's say after all the primaries Bernie is winning the delegate count 45 - 44%. He still does not have over 50% needed to win.
Under the old system, it was possible for HRC to get the majority of super delegates to hand her the nomination on the first ballot. This is still possible, but would need to occur on the second ballot with the new rules.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com