The Democratic Candidates

what dreams

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

brianlux

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

I think he was bummed because he knew he would likely have beaten Trump.

Hi!

Biden/Harris
Biden/Sanders
Biden/Holder
Biden/Booker
Biden/Abrams
Biden/Oprah

Sanders/Warren 
Sanders/Booker
Sanders/Harris
Sanders/Abrams

Jordan/Barkley
Hanks/Clooney
Oprah/Stedman

my2hands

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

CM189191

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.

I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions,  not an extension of the government.

Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.

But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there.  That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary.  It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections.  My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.

... Restaurants are not public spaces that let anyone in....

CM189191

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.

I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions,  not an extension of the government.

Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.

But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there.  That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary.  It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections.  My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.

How was it rigged?  Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election.  I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.  

CM189191

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.

I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions,  not an extension of the government.

Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.

But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there.  That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary.  It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections.  My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.

How was it rigged?  Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election.  I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.  

Rigged = disagreed with the outcome

CM189191

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.

I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions,  not an extension of the government.

Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.

But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there.  That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary.  It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections.  My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.

How was it rigged?  Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election.  I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.  

Rigged = disagreed with the outcome

Just remembered these guidelines.

DNC, rigged
General election, totally not rigged

Also, both sides are bad

cincybearcat

OnWis97 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay. 

Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him

I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton. 

I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.

I did that in Illinois in 2002 to vote for a moderate Republican vs. a right-wing jackass in the GOP primary for governor.  The right-wing jackass won the nomination.  Then lost to a Dem I liked.  That Dem?  Rod Blagojevich.  Turns out it was lose/lose. 

So who might that be...I know you like Mayor Pete, but do you envision him having a shot?  I kinda don't.  Of course, I don't necessarily think Trump is beatable.  In Minnesota we have a caucus so I probably won't bother.  But if I do, I'd probably go against those I am 100% don't have a shot.  That means Elizabeth Warren first.

Well - I like Pete.

Still looking at Klobochar and Hickenlooper.

But of the ones with more name recognition...and again I don't really agree with them on many issues but I would still vote for them (this time)

Harris
Biden
Beto
Booker

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.

I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions,  not an extension of the government.

Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.

But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there.  That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary.  It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections.  My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.

How was it rigged?  Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election.  I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.  

Fine...it wasn’t necessary reflective of the wishes of the rank-and-file voters.  “The party,” not a segment of the people, made the choice...which was my point.  The people don’t get involved until the nominees are decided.  We’re down a rabbit-hole of a tangent, now.

mcgruff10

I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate.  By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.  

cincybearcat

mcgruff10 said:

I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate.  By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.  

I agree with this. The primarily process is a big part of the problem with politics.

EDIT: in the US anyhow.

Spiritual_Chaos

mcgruff10 said:

I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate.  By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.  

Are you saying it should be more like how....


.... Sweden does it?

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate.  By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.  

Are you saying it should be more like how....


.... Sweden does it?

God bless Sweden. 

Meltdown99

mcgruff10 said:

I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate.  By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.  

That is how it is done in Canada.  The parties elect the leader and we vote for the party that we want.  I have no interest in selecting who leads the party.  We are 6-7 months out from an election, but you would not really know.  

mrussel1

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate.  By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.  

I agree with this. The primarily process is a big part of the problem with politics.

EDIT: in the US anyhow.

This is how it was done prior to the 20s. But that was decried as anti democratic,  leading to creation of the primaries. At least now people have their say and the state delegates have some sort of obligation to cast for the winner of the state, at least on the first ballot. 

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.

I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions,  not an extension of the government.

Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.

But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there.  That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary.  It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections.  My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.

How was it rigged?  Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election.  I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.  

Fine...it wasn’t necessary reflective of the wishes of the rank-and-file voters.  “The party,” not a segment of the people, made the choice...which was my point.  The people don’t get involved until the nominees are decided.  We’re down a rabbit-hole of a tangent, now.

Hillary won more votes than Bernie in the primaries, by 3.7 million.  That equates to a 55-43% margin.  It really wasn't particularly close. 

what dreams

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.

I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions,  not an extension of the government.

Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.

But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there.  That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary.  It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections.  My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.

How was it rigged?  Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election.  I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.  

Fine...it wasn’t necessary reflective of the wishes of the rank-and-file voters.  “The party,” not a segment of the people, made the choice...which was my point.  The people don’t get involved until the nominees are decided.  We’re down a rabbit-hole of a tangent, now.

I don't see this as a rabbit hole at all. We are in the part of the process where the people, in fact, have their say, if they choose to. You stated above that you don't plan on participating in your state's caucus. That's on you. You could choose to participate, if you wish.
It totally blows my mind that less than 10% of eligible voters consistently participate in primaries and caucuses, and then the "masses" of the 50% of people who vote in the general complain about the candidates -- after doing nothing to set the table. If you have a favored candidate you feel strongly about, get involved. Otherwise, you are left with what you are left with and have nobody to blame but yourself.

benjs

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

He didn’t make it through the primaries. He’s the undisputed loser. Fucking duh she lost to Trump - Sanders didn’t even get to run against him though. How well you do in the system that exists (not the system you want) is what defines how strong a candidate you are.