Who is your choice in the Democratic Presidential Primary?

Ledbetterman10

Joe Biden

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

can someone who hates warren tell me why?

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. 

Ledbetterman10

Joe Biden

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?!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk-yvUOQm0E

pjl44

Andrew Yang

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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

Ledbetterman10

Joe Biden

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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! 

Spiritual_Chaos

Bernie Sanders

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

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.

CM189191 said:

really anyone except bernie

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.






https://youtu.be/bxb5S87O23s

brianlux

Andrew Yang

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.

https://kentnerburn.com/bernie-the-monster-and-the-train-coming-down-the-tracks/

"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."

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

pjl44

Andrew Yang

Ledbetterman10 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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"

Ledbetterman10

Joe Biden

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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? 

HughFreakingDillon

Elisabeth Warren

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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"?

HughFreakingDillon

Elisabeth Warren

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

cincybearcat

Pete Buttigeg

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

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.

CM189191 said:

really anyone except bernie

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.






https://youtu.be/bxb5S87O23s

Is that a national poll? Cause no matter how big a % Bernie would win California by, he will get the same electoral #.  

I think looking at the real battleground states is the only thing that matters 

Ledbetterman10

Joe Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

mrussel1

Pete Buttigeg

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.  

Ledbetterman10

Joe Biden

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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! 

HughFreakingDillon

Elisabeth Warren

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

mrussel1

Pete Buttigeg

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

mrussel1

Pete Buttigeg

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.  

Ledbetterman10

Joe Biden

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

But that's why you can vote against him. 

HughFreakingDillon

Elisabeth Warren

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.