The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?
Hmmm . . . where have I heard this before????0 -
I think he was bummed because he knew he would likely have beaten Trump.what dreams said:Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?
Hmmm . . . where have I heard this before????
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Biden/Harris
Biden/Sanders
Biden/Holder
Biden/Booker
Biden/Abrams
Biden/Oprah
Sanders/Warren
Sanders/Booker
Sanders/Harris
Sanders/Abrams
Jordan/Barkley
Hanks/Clooney
Oprah/Stedman
Post edited by Hi! onDetroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
0 -
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?what dreams said:Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?
Hmmm . . . where have I heard this before????
Yeah, she fucking sucked0 -
... Restaurants are not public spaces that let anyone in....OnWis97 said:mrussel1 said:
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.what dreams said:I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.0 -
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?what dreams said:Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?
Hmmm . . . where have I heard this before????
Yeah, she fucking sucked0 -
How was it rigged? Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election. I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.OnWis97 said:mrussel1 said:
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.what dreams said:I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.0 -
Rigged = disagreed with the outcomemrussel1 said:
How was it rigged? Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election. I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.OnWis97 said:mrussel1 said:
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.what dreams said:I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.0 -
Just remembered these guidelines.CM189191 said:
Rigged = disagreed with the outcomemrussel1 said:
How was it rigged? Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election. I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.OnWis97 said:mrussel1 said:
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.what dreams said:I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.
DNC, rigged
General election, totally not rigged
Also, both sides are bad0 -
Well - I like Pete.OnWis97 said:
I did that in Illinois in 2002 to vote for a moderate Republican vs. a right-wing jackass in the GOP primary for governor. The right-wing jackass won the nomination. Then lost to a Dem I liked. That Dem? Rod Blagojevich. Turns out it was lose/lose.cincybearcat said:
I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.Ledbetterman10 said:
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.cincybearcat said:
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against himLedbetterman10 said:Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
So who might that be...I know you like Mayor Pete, but do you envision him having a shot? I kinda don't. Of course, I don't necessarily think Trump is beatable. In Minnesota we have a caucus so I probably won't bother. But if I do, I'd probably go against those I am 100% don't have a shot. That means Elizabeth Warren first.
Still looking at Klobochar and Hickenlooper.
But of the ones with more name recognition...and again I don't really agree with them on many issues but I would still vote for them (this time)
Harris
Biden
Beto
Booker
hippiemom = goodness0 -
Fine...it wasn’t necessary reflective of the wishes of the rank-and-file voters. “The party,” not a segment of the people, made the choice...which was my point. The people don’t get involved until the nominees are decided. We’re down a rabbit-hole of a tangent, now.mrussel1 said:
How was it rigged? Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election. I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.OnWis97 said:mrussel1 said:
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.what dreams said:I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.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
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate. By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
-
I agree with this. The primarily process is a big part of the problem with politics.mcgruff10 said:I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate. By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.
EDIT: in the US anyhow.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Are you saying it should be more like how....mcgruff10 said:I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate. By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.
.... Sweden does it?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
God bless Sweden.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Are you saying it should be more like how....mcgruff10 said:I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate. By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.
.... Sweden does it?hippiemom = goodness0 -
That is how it is done in Canada. The parties elect the leader and we vote for the party that we want. I have no interest in selecting who leads the party. We are 6-7 months out from an election, but you would not really know.mcgruff10 said:I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate. By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.Give Peas A Chance…0 -
This is how it was done prior to the 20s. But that was decried as anti democratic, leading to creation of the primaries. At least now people have their say and the state delegates have some sort of obligation to cast for the winner of the state, at least on the first ballot.cincybearcat said:
I agree with this. The primarily process is a big part of the problem with politics.mcgruff10 said:I wish they would just get rid of the primaries and have each political party pick their candidate. By the time November rolls around everyone has election fatigue.
EDIT: in the US anyhow.0 -
Hillary won more votes than Bernie in the primaries, by 3.7 million. That equates to a 55-43% margin. It really wasn't particularly close.OnWis97 said:
Fine...it wasn’t necessary reflective of the wishes of the rank-and-file voters. “The party,” not a segment of the people, made the choice...which was my point. The people don’t get involved until the nominees are decided. We’re down a rabbit-hole of a tangent, now.mrussel1 said:
How was it rigged? Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election. I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.OnWis97 said:mrussel1 said:
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.what dreams said:I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.0 -
I don't see this as a rabbit hole at all. We are in the part of the process where the people, in fact, have their say, if they choose to. You stated above that you don't plan on participating in your state's caucus. That's on you. You could choose to participate, if you wish.OnWis97 said:
Fine...it wasn’t necessary reflective of the wishes of the rank-and-file voters. “The party,” not a segment of the people, made the choice...which was my point. The people don’t get involved until the nominees are decided. We’re down a rabbit-hole of a tangent, now.mrussel1 said:
How was it rigged? Super delegates have been the process since McGovern and they were the rules coming into the 16 election. I hate that word because it implies corruption, and the process was not corrupt.OnWis97 said:mrussel1 said:
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.what dreams said:I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.
It totally blows my mind that less than 10% of eligible voters consistently participate in primaries and caucuses, and then the "masses" of the 50% of people who vote in the general complain about the candidates -- after doing nothing to set the table. If you have a favored candidate you feel strongly about, get involved. Otherwise, you are left with what you are left with and have nobody to blame but yourself.0 -
He didn’t make it through the primaries. He’s the undisputed loser. Fucking duh she lost to Trump - Sanders didn’t even get to run against him though. How well you do in the system that exists (not the system you want) is what defines how strong a candidate you are.my2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?what dreams said:Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?
Hmmm . . . where have I heard this before????
Yeah, she fucking sucked'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help