Well, my ballot is filled out, sealed in the envelope and ready to mail. In the end, believing a vote for Yang would be a throw away vote (he is still my favorite by far!) and believing Bernie will take California anyway, I went with Amy Klobuchar. I still like what Bernie stands for, I still believe we need more progressive people in office, but most of all, I believe we need to not get stuck with Trump for another for years.
For those who gave me shit for saying I was going to vote for Sanders, please, just keep your comments to yourself. I don't need to hear it, thanks.
KLOMENTUM!!
Amy/Pete 2020!!
"Klomentum" LOL. Big question is, what are her chances? I really don't know.
Amy as pres. and somebody as VP would be great. I liked Pete a lot for a while but I can't say I'm big on him right now. I really disliked him in the last two debates. But I'd take Pete over Dumpster for president any day and Pete for VP over some of the billionaire candidates, as well.
Well she's intelligent, qualified, well spoken, successful. So her chances are somewhere between slim and none because American voters are f****** morons.
As was Andrew Yang (at least I think so.)
Only the good (candidates) die (out of the election process) young.
Klobuchar was the primary sponsor of 34 bills that were enacted.
How many did Yang have again?
None. Obviously.
But look, here's the deal for me. Much as I like her in some ways and hope she can beat Trump if nominated (we can collectively say a big "duh"! to that), Amy is a career status quo centrist business pretty much as usual politician. I've watched that kind of "progress" happen since I first started voting in the early 70's. 50 years of politics as usual and I'm watching this country and the world go to hell. It's time to try something different with someone smart and who has good, innovative, forward thinking ideas. That is what I see in Andrew Yang. You're not going to talk me out of liking Yang, so you might want to channel that energy in another direction.
“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 like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
That's not how the nomination process works. The party decides who is going to run. It's not a "fuck democracy" thing.
That said, it would be a mistake to remove Bernie.
Still democracy and listening to ones members within an organization.
At least where I'm from.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Well, my ballot is filled out, sealed in the envelope and ready to mail. In the end, believing a vote for Yang would be a throw away vote (he is still my favorite by far!) and believing Bernie will take California anyway, I went with Amy Klobuchar. I still like what Bernie stands for, I still believe we need more progressive people in office, but most of all, I believe we need to not get stuck with Trump for another for years.
For those who gave me shit for saying I was going to vote for Sanders, please, just keep your comments to yourself. I don't need to hear it, thanks.
KLOMENTUM!!
Amy/Pete 2020!!
"Klomentum" LOL. Big question is, what are her chances? I really don't know.
Amy as pres. and somebody as VP would be great. I liked Pete a lot for a while but I can't say I'm big on him right now. I really disliked him in the last two debates. But I'd take Pete over Dumpster for president any day and Pete for VP over some of the billionaire candidates, as well.
Well she's intelligent, qualified, well spoken, successful. So her chances are somewhere between slim and none because American voters are f****** morons.
As was Andrew Yang (at least I think so.)
Only the good (candidates) die (out of the election process) young.
Klobuchar was the primary sponsor of 34 bills that were enacted.
How many did Yang have again?
None. Obviously.
But look, here's the deal for me. Much as I like her in some ways and hope she can beat Trump if nominated (we can collectively say a big "duh"! to that), Amy is a career status quo centrist business pretty much as usual politician. I've watched that kind of "progress" happen since I first started voting in the early 70's. 50 years of politics as usual and I'm watching this country and the world go to hell. It's time to try something different with someone smart and who has good, innovative, forward thinking ideas. That is what I see in Andrew Yang. You're not going to talk me out of liking Yang, so you might want to channel that energy in another direction.
Maybe the rest of the country is going to hell, but things are pretty good up here in MN.
After tonight's debate, and having just a few more days to mail my ballot, I've decided to go with Bernie after all. Pete blew it with his phony and arrogant attacks on Sanders and the others have worn thin on me. Bernie it is for me!
You are the first winner.
Everyone climbing on the Bernie Bandwagon gets a free one. Congrats sir!
So tell me who would beat Trump if not Bernie?
someone who is interested in uniting people, instead of dividing them
I believe the "we need to unite" thing is a pundit and political air castle thing without base in reality. People have argued that the low turnout in the early states was because they were content with whoever got elected. Anyone being better than Trump.
Lol.. yeah.... okey... no need to go down your list any further it seems.. Put your life savings on Steyer. And I keep mine on the most beloved senator in the country, Bernie Sanders.
Steyer stands a better chance against Trump than Bernie does. He'll lose too though.
Bernie will get his ass kicked in the swing states that matter. Wisconsin Michigan Pennsylvania Florida Ohio none of these states are going to go for Bernie.
He'll sweep them.
No, Bernie will get his ass handed to him in flyover swing states.
Accelerated Disruption is a good way to leverage a smart idea and technology to successfully grow businesses and create distinct competitive advantage in traditional industries.
Accelerated Disruption is not good for government. Government is designed to be a long-term stable foundation upon which civilization is built. This solid foundation allows capitalism to grow and prosper, while mitigating the risks involved.
I guess some people just want to watch the world burn.
Lol. You almost had me till the bolded.
Predatory capitalism prospering > People
is a weird thing to consider a solid foundation.
Sanders is trying to give your country that solid foundation, decades later than other major countries.
Just disruptive to the ones in power that needs to be disrupted.
#SandersSwooping
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I don't hate her, but I do find her very annoying. Like the Bloomberg "kill it" stuff in the last debate. Even if that's true, it's not a morality contest. Who can beat Trump? And who can actually govern? That's what people care about. Not if Bloomberg said something very mean years ago.
Also, she's hard to take seriously sometimes. Please watch this video. She, in a serious tone, suggests that she's going to have a 10-year-old help her pick her secretary of education. A 10-year-old. That sort of stuff makes Trump seem smart by comparison.
Well, my ballot is filled out, sealed in the envelope and ready to mail. In the end, believing a vote for Yang would be a throw away vote (he is still my favorite by far!) and believing Bernie will take California anyway, I went with Amy Klobuchar. I still like what Bernie stands for, I still believe we need more progressive people in office, but most of all, I believe we need to not get stuck with Trump for another for years.
For those who gave me shit for saying I was going to vote for Sanders, please, just keep your comments to yourself. I don't need to hear it, thanks.
KLOMENTUM!!
Amy/Pete 2020!!
"Klomentum" LOL. Big question is, what are her chances? I really don't know.
Amy as pres. and somebody as VP would be great. I liked Pete a lot for a while but I can't say I'm big on him right now. I really disliked him in the last two debates. But I'd take Pete over Dumpster for president any day and Pete for VP over some of the billionaire candidates, as well.
Well she's intelligent, qualified, well spoken, successful. So her chances are somewhere between slim and none because American voters are f****** morons.
As was Andrew Yang (at least I think so.)
Only the good (candidates) die (out of the election process) young.
Klobuchar was the primary sponsor of 34 bills that were enacted.
How many did Yang have again?
None. Obviously.
But look, here's the deal for me. Much as I like her in some ways and hope she can beat Trump if nominated (we can collectively say a big "duh"! to that), Amy is a career status quo centrist business pretty much as usual politician. I've watched that kind of "progress" happen since I first started voting in the early 70's. 50 years of politics as usual and I'm watching this country and the world go to hell. It's time to try something different with someone smart and who has good, innovative, forward thinking ideas. That is what I see in Andrew Yang. You're not going to talk me out of liking Yang, so you might want to channel that energy in another direction.
Maybe the rest of the country is going to hell, but things are pretty good up here in MN.
Things may (or may not- I don't believe every thing I read, especially from a source like US News) be getting better in some parts of the country and/or the world. The country and the world in general are in worse shape than they were 50 years ago. If your little corner is doing well, well, good for you. I'm concerned about the bigger picture.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Serious question: Bernie's ancient, just had a heart attack, and knocking on death store.
Who does he pick his VP?
No one on that debate stage is going to stand with him.
Is it Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, Jill Stein?
Who does Bernie pick as his number two?
If it's one of the two bolded, I'm out on "vote blue no matter who." I'm not sure whether Bernie's on the up-and-up, Russian-asset-wise, but if he picks a Russian asset, I'm out. Williamson? I don't know much about her...I'd have to look into it.
If he wants to win, he'd have to "compromise" and go for someone that appeals to the moderates. Warren? Cory Booker? Someone else? But frankly, I'm concerned that compromise isn't his thing.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I don't hate her, but I do find her very annoying. Like the Bloomberg "kill it" stuff in the last debate. Even if that's true, it's not a morality contest. Who can beat Trump? And who can actually govern? That's what people care about. Not if Bloomberg said something very mean years ago.
Think to live in a world where people are A-OK with having a president who told a female employee who was pregnant to "kill it" about her child (among other things).
- But he can govern! Look at all these racist policies he's a fan of!
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I don't hate her, but I do find her very annoying. Like the Bloomberg "kill it" stuff in the last debate. Even if that's true, it's not a morality contest. Who can beat Trump? And who can actually govern? That's what people care about. Not if Bloomberg said something very mean years ago.
Think to live in a world where people are A-OK with having a president who told a female employee who was pregnant to "kill it" about her child (among other things).
- But he can govern! Look at all these racist policies he's a fan of!
Not saying it’s a-ok. I just don’t care to hear about it in a debate (if you could even call that shit-show a debate)
Edit: And I love how you didn’t include that video of Warren pandering in quoting me. As you know, it’s common around here to bold a section of a post if you want to respond to just a part of a post. But Warren makes herself look so stupid in that video that I guess you didn’t want it reposted in a quote. Bloomberg and Trump may be rich assholes, but at least they wouldn’t claim to have 10-year-olds interview prospective cabinet members.
Okay, in fairness to Warren, she doesn't mention the age (which I previously stated as 10-years-old) of the "young trans person" who she'll have interviewing secretary of education nominees. But it's still a young person. I'm not against pandering to the LGBTQ community or anybody else. Every politician has to do it. But come on, a young person interviewing prospective cabinet members? And I love the Kirk Cousins impression at the end. "You like that?!"
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
Beyond ridiculous, indeed
It's even worse with the House of Representatives and their two-year terms. They're campaigning for re-election the moment they're elected!
After tonight's debate, and having just a few more days to mail my ballot, I've decided to go with Bernie after all. Pete blew it with his phony and arrogant attacks on Sanders and the others have worn thin on me. Bernie it is for me!
You are the first winner.
Everyone climbing on the Bernie Bandwagon gets a free one. Congrats sir!
So tell me who would beat Trump if not Bernie?
someone who is interested in uniting people, instead of dividing them
I believe the "we need to unite" thing is a pundit and political air castle thing without base in reality. People have argued that the low turnout in the early states was because they were content with whoever got elected. Anyone being better than Trump.
Lol.. yeah.... okey... no need to go down your list any further it seems.. Put your life savings on Steyer. And I keep mine on the most beloved senator in the country, Bernie Sanders.
Steyer stands a better chance against Trump than Bernie does. He'll lose too though.
Bernie will get his ass kicked in the swing states that matter. Wisconsin Michigan Pennsylvania Florida Ohio none of these states are going to go for Bernie.
Panic Over Sanders Unsupported By Data
Some Democrats are freaking out now that Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner for the nomination, but the polling data doesn't support their fears that he would lose and lose big against Trump.
Author Kent Nerburn recently posted on his site his thought about Bernie Sanders. I'm very torn on Sanders. I like his ides quite a bit and I believe we need leaders with fresh ideas. But I think Nerburn makes some good points here. It's an excellent article and I hope a few here will read it, but I will copy and paste some of the main points.
"Well, Bernie folks, your boy’s on a roll, and, if truth be told, I’m
scared. Not because I disagree with Bernie. In fact, I believe in
almost everything he stands for. But because I’ve been here before, and
I have a pretty good sense of how the movie ends."
"Though the issues were different, we’ve been where you are and we felt
like you feel. In fact, our anger and frustration were more immediate...
...it was time for a change. So, what did we do? We spoke out, we
stood up, we created a groundswell and mounted a Youth Crusade, just
like you are doing, and pushed McGovern — a good and visionary man —
forward. And you know what happened? The Republicans wiped the floor
with us.
We got slaughtered.
We got Nixon.
Maybe this time is different, but remember the adage, “Those that don’t
learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And I see history coming
like a freight train down the track toward us."
"Here’s what you need to understand: the current crop of Republicans
don’t believe in government. They think government is the enemy, an
impediment. They just want everyone to have the right to make as much
and keep as much as they can. There are no overarching social values,
only the value of personal freedom. And, to them, government stands in
the way.
They don’t want to govern. They just want to win so the Democrats
can’t govern. They have no Marquis de Queensbury political rules. They
will lie, cheat, steal, and use every means at their disposal to win.
And Trump is the most shameless proponent of this approach that we have
ever seen."
" I revere almost everything Bernie stands for... But instead of listening to these people, Bernie is busy telling them
why he is right. And he may be. But a person who is not willing to
listen, but is intent on telling you why his or her ideas are right, is
doomed to have a small but rabid following of true believers who end up
turning off people who do not share every specific of that value system
or who look at the world from multiple points of view. And that’s most
of us."
"The hard truth is that change takes place by planting ideas in the
collective consciousness, and letting them grow. Bernie has planted
some of the best and most necessary new ideas in the American
consciousness of anyone in my lifetime. But he can’t bludgeon people
into accepting them. A true leader makes people think that he
understands them, not that he knows what is best for them."
"You may think that Bernie is galvanizing, but from where I stand in time and place he is divisive, not inclusive."
“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 like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
Beyond ridiculous, indeed
It's even worse with the House of Representatives and their two-year terms. They're campaigning for re-election the moment they're elected!
And I love how they run the gamut from "consistently runs unopposed" to "consistently fights off a primary before pulling out the general by 2 points"
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
you do have a voice. but they don't have to listen. the whole primary process isn't voting for someone that is binding, it's basically a very complicated and expensive way of taking a poll on a massive scale. the DNC and RNC owe the public nothing. if the convention believes the public is wrong, which, to me, is odd, but they have every right to choose their party's leader.
to me, the primaries are a much different animal than the general. sure, this guy is exciting the folks who follow politics as a daily routine. But what about joe public? the 50% of the american public that don't vote. the guy who doesn't give a shit until he suddenly realizes it's November 2nd and he has to choose by tomorrow.
the DNC has to take into account both its most ardent supporters and also those disenfranchised voters, the independents, and the swings. If they don't, they do so at their own peril? I think bernie would have been trounced in 2016. america was fed up with obama. you think they would have gone FURTHER LEFT after that?
has the DNC every come out and officially stated "we will nominate who you, the people, have chosen"?
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
After tonight's debate, and having just a few more days to mail my ballot, I've decided to go with Bernie after all. Pete blew it with his phony and arrogant attacks on Sanders and the others have worn thin on me. Bernie it is for me!
You are the first winner.
Everyone climbing on the Bernie Bandwagon gets a free one. Congrats sir!
So tell me who would beat Trump if not Bernie?
someone who is interested in uniting people, instead of dividing them
I believe the "we need to unite" thing is a pundit and political air castle thing without base in reality. People have argued that the low turnout in the early states was because they were content with whoever got elected. Anyone being better than Trump.
Lol.. yeah.... okey... no need to go down your list any further it seems.. Put your life savings on Steyer. And I keep mine on the most beloved senator in the country, Bernie Sanders.
Steyer stands a better chance against Trump than Bernie does. He'll lose too though.
Bernie will get his ass kicked in the swing states that matter. Wisconsin Michigan Pennsylvania Florida Ohio none of these states are going to go for Bernie.
Panic Over Sanders Unsupported By Data
Some Democrats are freaking out now that Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner for the nomination, but the polling data doesn't support their fears that he would lose and lose big against Trump.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
when you've spent your career sticking your finger in the eyes of Democrats, insulting them, calling them elite, playing the victim and now flip flopping on your 2016 position, why would Bernie think he could build a coalition of delegates and super delegates to get him over the hump? He should have been building relationships for the past 20 years.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
when you've spent your career sticking your finger in the eyes of Democrats, insulting them, calling them elite, playing the victim and now flip flopping on your 2016 position, why would Bernie think he could build a coalition of delegates and super delegates to get him over the hump? He should have been building relationships for the past 20 years.
I don't disagree with this at all, but man, what a sad, sad system you've just outlined. You have to be in one party or the other just to have a shot at being president, and you have to be in the party's good graces by towing the company line. Bernie must think that building a coalition of voters is as important as building a coalition of delegates and superdelegates. Dumbass. You're building relationships with the wrong people, Bernie!
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
when you've spent your career sticking your finger in the eyes of Democrats, insulting them, calling them elite, playing the victim and now flip flopping on your 2016 position, why would Bernie think he could build a coalition of delegates and super delegates to get him over the hump? He should have been building relationships for the past 20 years.
I don't disagree with this at all, but man, what a sad, sad system you've just outlined. You have to be in one party or the other just to have a shot at being president, and you have to be in the party's good graces by towing the company line. Bernie must think that building a coalition of voters is as important as building a coalition of delegates and superdelegates. Dumbass. You're building relationships with the wrong people, Bernie!
for what it's worth and outside of optics, canada is also a two party system. sure, you may get a few rep's elected from other parties, but your federal leader has never been any other than liberal or conservative. I don't see that changing any time soon. Jack Layton of the NDP got close, but then he got sick and died.
do any other democratic systems have more than a two party system?
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
when you've spent your career sticking your finger in the eyes of Democrats, insulting them, calling them elite, playing the victim and now flip flopping on your 2016 position, why would Bernie think he could build a coalition of delegates and super delegates to get him over the hump? He should have been building relationships for the past 20 years.
I don't disagree with this at all, but man, what a sad, sad system you've just outlined. You have to be in one party or the other just to have a shot at being president, and you have to be in the party's good graces by towing the company line. Bernie must think that building a coalition of voters is as important as building a coalition of delegates and superdelegates. Dumbass. You're building relationships with the wrong people, Bernie!
Not really. I'm not part of the party apparatus but I am part of the party. I'm registered, vote, have volunteered, etc. And Bernie has done nothing but insult Democrats like me, continuously. Think about it from your work perspective. Someone sits there and trashes you and your ideas year after year, in meeting after meeting. And then one day, they need you on a project that they are responsible for delivering to the CEO. How excited or committed are you in helping them out? The problem isn't that Bernie's ideas are to the left of most of the party, it's the way he has approached that disagreement. And now he will need not only the SDs, but the rank and file delegates as well. And he's trashed them all for years. Can't blame the delegates for being human. Bernie was never required to choose between the voters and the delegates. He could have had them both had he cared to try.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
when you've spent your career sticking your finger in the eyes of Democrats, insulting them, calling them elite, playing the victim and now flip flopping on your 2016 position, why would Bernie think he could build a coalition of delegates and super delegates to get him over the hump? He should have been building relationships for the past 20 years.
I don't disagree with this at all, but man, what a sad, sad system you've just outlined. You have to be in one party or the other just to have a shot at being president, and you have to be in the party's good graces by towing the company line. Bernie must think that building a coalition of voters is as important as building a coalition of delegates and superdelegates. Dumbass. You're building relationships with the wrong people, Bernie!
for what it's worth and outside of optics, canada is also a two party system. sure, you may get a few rep's elected from other parties, but your federal leader has never been any other than liberal or conservative. I don't see that changing any time soon. Jack Layton of the NDP got close, but then he got sick and died.
do any other democratic systems have more than a two party system?
England, Italy, Israel, Germany... parliamentary systems work well for multi-party systems. The EC does not, as a practical matter. We've had multi-party systems and the election of 1824 (the Corrupt Bargain) was sort of the watershed moment in this country when we moved away from it.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
when you've spent your career sticking your finger in the eyes of Democrats, insulting them, calling them elite, playing the victim and now flip flopping on your 2016 position, why would Bernie think he could build a coalition of delegates and super delegates to get him over the hump? He should have been building relationships for the past 20 years.
I don't disagree with this at all, but man, what a sad, sad system you've just outlined. You have to be in one party or the other just to have a shot at being president, and you have to be in the party's good graces by towing the company line. Bernie must think that building a coalition of voters is as important as building a coalition of delegates and superdelegates. Dumbass. You're building relationships with the wrong people, Bernie!
Not really. I'm not part of the party apparatus but I am part of the party. I'm registered, vote, have volunteered, etc. And Bernie has done nothing but insult Democrats like me, continuously. Think about it from your work perspective. Someone sits there and trashes you and your ideas year after year, in meeting after meeting. And then one day, they need you on a project that they are responsible for delivering to the CEO. How excited or committed are you in helping them out? The problem isn't that Bernie's ideas are to the left of most of the party, it's the way he has approached that disagreement. And now he will need not only the SDs, but the rank and file delegates as well. And he's trashed them all for years. Can't blame the delegates for being human. Bernie was never required to choose between the voters and the delegates. He could have had them both had he cared to try.
I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it.
friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared there's a long road ahead as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain (that won't be bernie)
That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.
I agree. The GOP/RNC should have stepped in and prevented that from happening.
Happy to see you advocating for DNC intervention. Remove Bernie as a candidate, the sooner the better.
FUCK DEMOCRACY
AM
I
RITE
The DNC gets to choose who they want to support and promote. It is not a public, democratic body. It is a private organization.
But you knew that.
That may be true, but requiring a majority in the general election to win it, makes it extremely difficult for anything but a duopoly to exist in the USA. Then, if those two parties are (practically speaking) the only avenues to the presidency, and one has to be vetted by the private organizations prior to being nominated, then I'd argue that he's right and it's just not a democratic process. You could argue that this is evidenced by the fact that it's only been one of the two major parties who's ever actually succeeded.
it's essentially the same process in canada, though. each party chooses their own leader. but in the states it's just a massively drawn out process so the party can be sure they are nominating the most popular candidate. people seem to think that the party is beholden to the convention, and it isn't. they mostly do choose the most popular candidate, but if they feel that they can't bring in swing voters or voters from the other party, it's well within their right to choose someone else. this whole "bernie got fucked in 2016" is hogwash. they can choose whomever they want.
in canada they just vote internally. and I'm thankful AF for that. i can't imagine if our federal elections took up half of each PM term. the system is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree. If a party, even a private party, portrays themselves as being for the people and giving the people s voice, and they don't, that is wrong. Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
I dunno. It's tough to say. We know due to those leaked memos that the DNC was definitely against Bernie, but Hillary did win enough delegates to secure the nomination. So I wouldn't call it a full-on screwing....
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
to gauge public support. if it was OVERWHELMING in one candidate's favour, I'm sure they'd choose that one. But if it's close, and they still think one nominee has a better chance with swing voters and independents, they make that call.
Well if it's overwhelming, it's probably a majority and I think they have to give the nomination to a person that gets to that number (1,991). But if it's just a large plurality, they still get to make the call. And if it's Bernie, I'm not sure they give it to him. And I understand where they're coming from: I think Bernie would have a tough go against Trump just as they do. But I don't like any of the other candidates' chances much either. So if Bernie has a plurality, and they're left with the options of 1) nominate Bernie and lose, 2) or give it to Bloomberg or Biden, lose anyway, and piss off all the democrats that voted for Bernie, option 1 seems like the way to go...for the long run. If future elections mean anything to the Dems. They're so obsessed with Trump that I'm not sure they can even look that far ahead. But the once-passionate-about-politics-Bernie-supporter isn't coming out and voting Blue in 2022 if they feel Bernie was hosed, or in the 2024 presidential election.
when you've spent your career sticking your finger in the eyes of Democrats, insulting them, calling them elite, playing the victim and now flip flopping on your 2016 position, why would Bernie think he could build a coalition of delegates and super delegates to get him over the hump? He should have been building relationships for the past 20 years.
I don't disagree with this at all, but man, what a sad, sad system you've just outlined. You have to be in one party or the other just to have a shot at being president, and you have to be in the party's good graces by towing the company line. Bernie must think that building a coalition of voters is as important as building a coalition of delegates and superdelegates. Dumbass. You're building relationships with the wrong people, Bernie!
for what it's worth and outside of optics, canada is also a two party system. sure, you may get a few rep's elected from other parties, but your federal leader has never been any other than liberal or conservative. I don't see that changing any time soon. Jack Layton of the NDP got close, but then he got sick and died.
do any other democratic systems have more than a two party system?
England, Italy, Israel, Germany... parliamentary systems work well for multi-party systems. The EC does not, as a practical matter. We've had multi-party systems and the election of 1824 (the Corrupt Bargain) was sort of the watershed moment in this country when we moved away from it.
that's pretty much the same system as we have in canada, no? I mean, yes, we have a monarch, but they hold little to no power anymore. mainly a figurehead.
Comments
At least where I'm from.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
do the math
www.headstonesband.com
Predatory capitalism prospering > People
is a weird thing to consider a solid foundation.
Sanders is trying to give your country that solid foundation, decades later than other major countries.
Just disruptive to the ones in power that needs to be disrupted.
#SandersSwooping
Also, she's hard to take seriously sometimes. Please watch this video. She, in a serious tone, suggests that she's going to have a 10-year-old help her pick her secretary of education. A 10-year-old. That sort of stuff makes Trump seem smart by comparison.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
If he wants to win, he'd have to "compromise" and go for someone that appeals to the moderates. Warren? Cory Booker? Someone else? But frankly, I'm concerned that compromise isn't his thing.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
- But he can govern! Look at all these racist policies he's a fan of!
Edit: And I love how you didn’t include that video of Warren pandering in quoting me. As you know, it’s common around here to bold a section of a post if you want to respond to just a part of a post. But Warren makes herself look so stupid in that video that I guess you didn’t want it reposted in a quote. Bloomberg and Trump may be rich assholes, but at least they wouldn’t claim to have 10-year-olds interview prospective cabinet members.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Panic Over Sanders Unsupported By Data
Some Democrats are freaking out now that Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner for the nomination, but the polling data doesn't support their fears that he would lose and lose big against Trump.
...it was time for a change. So, what did we do? We spoke out, we stood up, we created a groundswell and mounted a Youth Crusade, just like you are doing, and pushed McGovern — a good and visionary man — forward. And you know what happened? The Republicans wiped the floor with us.
We got slaughtered.
We got Nixon.
Maybe this time is different, but remember the adage, “Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And I see history coming like a freight train down the track toward us."
"Here’s what you need to understand: the current crop of Republicans don’t believe in government. They think government is the enemy, an impediment. They just want everyone to have the right to make as much and keep as much as they can. There are no overarching social values, only the value of personal freedom. And, to them, government stands in the way.
They don’t want to govern. They just want to win so the Democrats can’t govern. They have no Marquis de Queensbury political rules. They will lie, cheat, steal, and use every means at their disposal to win. And Trump is the most shameless proponent of this approach that we have ever seen."
" I revere almost everything Bernie stands for... But instead of listening to these people, Bernie is busy telling them why he is right. And he may be. But a person who is not willing to listen, but is intent on telling you why his or her ideas are right, is doomed to have a small but rabid following of true believers who end up turning off people who do not share every specific of that value system or who look at the world from multiple points of view. And that’s most of us."
"The hard truth is that change takes place by planting ideas in the collective consciousness, and letting them grow. Bernie has planted some of the best and most necessary new ideas in the American consciousness of anyone in my lifetime. But he can’t bludgeon people into accepting them. A true leader makes people think that he understands them, not that he knows what is best for them."
"You may think that Bernie is galvanizing, but from where I stand in time and place he is divisive, not inclusive."
Bernie did get screwed in 2016, that isn't hogwash. When they clearly favor a candidate to give her an advantage, but then claim this is a fair process where we have the say, it may be legal and allowed by the constitution but it isn't right. And to be honest, the dems are paying for it now. If Bernie had won the nomination 4 years ago and lost to Trump then, they wouldnt be trying to do the same thing now.
The full-on screwing of Bernie Sanders by the DNC is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 2020. I understand the arguments that the rules state that the party can pick their own candidate. But I agree with you, why even have caucuses and primary elections if that's the case?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
to me, the primaries are a much different animal than the general. sure, this guy is exciting the folks who follow politics as a daily routine. But what about joe public? the 50% of the american public that don't vote. the guy who doesn't give a shit until he suddenly realizes it's November 2nd and he has to choose by tomorrow.
the DNC has to take into account both its most ardent supporters and also those disenfranchised voters, the independents, and the swings. If they don't, they do so at their own peril? I think bernie would have been trounced in 2016. america was fed up with obama. you think they would have gone FURTHER LEFT after that?
has the DNC every come out and officially stated "we will nominate who you, the people, have chosen"?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
do any other democratic systems have more than a two party system?
www.headstonesband.com
The problem isn't that Bernie's ideas are to the left of most of the party, it's the way he has approached that disagreement. And now he will need not only the SDs, but the rank and file delegates as well. And he's trashed them all for years. Can't blame the delegates for being human. Bernie was never required to choose between the voters and the delegates. He could have had them both had he cared to try.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
www.headstonesband.com