Who plans to vote FOR a candidate, and who plans to vote AGAINST one

berzirk

berzirk

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
To expand, at the moment we have somewhere between 2-4 actual candidates running.

Hillary, Bernie, Trump, and...I guess Gary Johnson (Libertarian).  Feel free to add to the list if the Green Party, Communist, or other has a presumptive front runner with a shred of support. 

Are you passionate about one of the final candidates, or are you looking to vote against someone you feel very negatively about, even though you aren't fond of the other option?

I'm curious.  My hunch is that this will be one of the worst turnouts in presidential election history, because at least for me, all of the candidates are greatly flawed and damaging to me for a variety of reasons. At least in my social circles, if they aren't a Bernie Bro, then they don't plan on supporting anyone. 

 
Like I mentioned elsewhere, and people try to attack me for, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if I have to write his name in.

 
If Bernie manages to pull this off then he already had my vote and my respect for having to actually fight for his nomination. While I don't respect or support Clinton if she's 'handed' this election, I will vote against Trump.

 
The Green Giant said:
Like I mentioned elsewhere, and people try to attack me for, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if I have to write his name in.
Click to expand...
Bernie is sensible. It's not just something he's saying when he mentions Wall Street and all the companies out there running the show. They absolutely do and that's why someone like him is the last person they want in the White House. The most powerful and richest people/companies OWN all the land, all the big news media outlets, all of the biggest info pipelines, everything. They will do everything their money can afford to smear him and label him ridiculous shit because they know the common fool will eat it up in this country. People are ignorant and very gullible when it comes to political lies. No one questions anything anymore or bothers to research stuff. You don't even have to support the man to know it really is him against a bunch of millionaires and billionaires who want to keep this country in their grasp. Sadly he is the best candidate this county has seen in a LONG time but even with all the amazing support he's gotten in this last year he's still the little guy in this race and it doesn't help the Dems want nothing to do with him as truthfully the only reason they don't want him to get the nomination is they feel Clinton is their best shot at taking down that moron Trump. Side topic but if this country actually votes Trump in then it deserves everything that happens under his presidency. To quote George Carlin: "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders." This country deserves to get fucked if it's stupid enough to vote that idiot in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Navex said:
Bernie is sensible. It's not just something he's saying when he mentions Wall Street and all the companies out there running the show. They absolutely do and that's why someone like him is the last person they want in the White House. The most powerful and richest people/companies OWN all the land, all the big news media outlets, all of the biggest info pipelines, everything. They will do everything their money can afford to smear him and label him ridiculous shit because they know the common fool will eat it up in this country. People are ignorant and very gullible when it comes to political lies. No one questions anything anymore or bothers to research stuff. You don't even have to support the man to know it really is him against a bunch of millionaires and billionaires who want to keep this country in their grasp. Sadly he is the best candidate this county has seen in a LONG time but even with all the amazing support he's gotten in this last year he's still the little guy in this race and it doesn't help the Dems want nothing to do with him as truthfully the only reason they don't want him to get the nomination is they feel Clinton is their best shot at taking down that moron Trump. Side topic but if this country actually votes Trump in then it deserves everything that happens under his presidency. To quote George Carlin: "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders." This country deserves to get fucked if it's stupid enough to vote that idiot in.
Click to expand...
The DNC wants a woman for president, that's the only issue Clinton has.

The funny thing is Trump and Sanders are both similar in ways. Both know the system is corrupt and claim to fix it. It's why Trump won without and of the RNC support (Also free media, which plays into 'this is all corrupt;' hand). He yells and screams and says stupid things, he then attacks the people in power. The difference is Trump is an insane nut that all his supporters are fools if they think the rich guy will change anything, Sander is 'poor' for a politician and actually will do what he says and isn't a bigot.

When Trump wins this (Clinton has no chance and I don't see the DNC paying attention that Sander will swipe Trump's ass.) both the D and R parties will never ever be the same.

Maybe that's good. I just hope we can survive 4 years of Trump and god knows how many years of his Supreme Court picks.

 
I'm voting for Clinton.  Her style and philosophy are close enough to my own, supporting achievable incremental gains while not overly rocking the boat during a period where people are getting their lives back in order.  I feel that she has the experience and qualifications to run and have no problem casting a ballot for her.

 
It may come down for the VP pick for me.  No way I can vote for Clinton but if Trump actually picks a credible VP running mate, I may end up voting for him.  Otherwise I'll stay home.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Libertarian. You know, the only candidate with common sense.
Click to expand...

dopa345 said:
It may come down for the VP pick for me. No way I can vote for Clinton but if Trump actually picks a credible VP running mate, I may end up voting for him. Otherwise I'll stay home.
Click to expand...
How do you guys feel about MA's former governor Bill Weld? He's the libertarian VP candidate! :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Bernie picks Tulsi Gabbard as his veep, I'm writing him in even though I don't really support him (I've finally worked hard enough and long enough to make decent dough, and I'm in no hurry for him to take it away because I'm earning someone else's "fair share" of my shit), but I respect Gabbard a ton, and anything that puts her in position to take a run at the big office in 4-8yrs, I'm on board with. 

Imagine a Gabbard/Booker or Booker/Gabbard ticket.  Paul Ryan would need to run with Jesus Christ to win Texas. 

I despise Clinton. Like...I get that she's getting faaaar more votes than Bernie, and I get how all the superdelegates are supporting her so they can sit next to the big table and get scraps, but I don't understand how Democrats are voting for her by such overwhelming majority.  They have a mildly rational, sincere, trusted, and experienced legislator running against her, and he's getting crushed. 

I feel like Clinton's position on something is 1) what benefits her the most and 2) what did a focus group test as her position in order to win such and such demographic.  I just don't see how anyone can stand her.  She sickens me as much as Trump...or maybe more so, because I think he knows most of us know he is trolling. Clinton thinks people actually believe her bullshit...actually...maybe I'm the idiot, because based on the polls, people seem to believe it. The fact that she's so through and through bought and paid for by special interests and lobbyists.  Just yuck. I see nothing redeeming of her at all. 

If Ron Paul or Ralph Nader were 20yrs younger, this would be the strongest 3rd party showing since Ross Perot. I can't believe how broken this system is. 

 
dohdough said:
How do you guys feel about MA's former governor Bill Weld? He's the libertarian VP candidate! :lol:
Click to expand...
I don't know who that is.

Whats your opinion on Jill Stein's believe that nuclear power plants are are just weapons of mass destruction?

Also her belief that student debt can be canceled via QE. Any ideas?

 
Clinton represents the worst qualities of stereotypical career politicians. No genuine desire to effect change or a platform she's been working toward, just a desire to hold office and increase her visibility.

Trump at least has the decency to be more transparent in his goal of being president for no other reason than it being the goal in and of itself.

For both of them, a variation of George Mallory's Everest quote, "Why do you want to be President?" "Because it's there."
 
berzirk said:
If Bernie picks Tulsi Gabbard as his veep, I'm writing him in even though I don't really support him (I've finally worked hard enough and long enough to make decent dough, and I'm in no hurry for him to take it away because I'm earning someone else's "fair share" of my shit), but I respect Gabbard a ton, and anything that puts her in position to take a run at the big office in 4-8yrs, I'm on board with.

Imagine a Gabbard/Booker or Booker/Gabbard ticket. Paul Ryan would need to run with Jesus Christ to win Texas.

I despise Clinton. Like...I get that she's getting faaaar more votes than Bernie, and I get how all the superdelegates are supporting her so they can sit next to the big table and get scraps, but I don't understand how Democrats are voting for her by such overwhelming majority. They have a mildly rational, sincere, trusted, and experienced legislator running against her, and he's getting crushed.

I feel like Clinton's position on something is 1) what benefits her the most and 2) what did a focus group test as her position in order to win such and such demographic. I just don't see how anyone can stand her. She sickens me as much as Trump...or maybe more so, because I think he knows most of us know he is trolling. Clinton thinks people actually believe her bullshit...actually...maybe I'm the idiot, because based on the polls, people seem to believe it. The fact that she's so through and through bought and paid for by special interests and lobbyists. Just yuck. I see nothing redeeming of her at all.

If Ron Paul or Ralph Nader were 20yrs younger, this would be the strongest 3rd party showing since Ross Perot. I can't believe how broken this system is.
Click to expand...
Haha...you just described almost every politician EVER when telling us why you hate Clinton. Dude, WE GET IT. Even I don't think I have as much hate for anyone...well, maybe Ron Paul comes close, but I can't remember the last time I went out of my way to bash him.

Anywho, I think Booker is a good choice and that would certainly increase her favorability or at least electability among Bernie supporters, but because of how establishment she is, she'd probably pick someone like Deval Patrick or possibly one of the Castro Bros. The DNC should've run Elizabeth Warren. She comes off as genuine and had that fire that Clinton doesn't, while being far more polished than Bernie.

Either way, I think Trump has a serious chance of winning. All the pundits and polls say that he doesn't have the demographics, but I say never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. If Arnold and Ventura can get elected, Trump isn't that crazy of a possibility.

 
berzirk said:
I despise Clinton. Like...I get that she's getting faaaar more votes than Bernie, and I get how all the superdelegates are supporting her so they can sit next to the big table and get scraps, but I don't understand how Democrats are voting for her by such overwhelming majority. They have a mildly rational, sincere, trusted, and experienced legislator running against her, and he's getting crushed.
Click to expand...
(1) Because centrist Democrats don't want a financial revolution or war on Wall Street. We have jobs and mortgages and stuff and while financial regulation is good, the "burn it down" attitude is a turn-off.

(2) Because much of Sanders' ideas are just plain unworkable. Example: You can't have free college when you're putting 33% of the burden on states which can't afford their current budgets. Sanders' New York Daily News interview was a fiasco where he couldn't explain his own policies or how the financial arms of government function. Clinton is a policy wonk and, she might lack charisma (might??), but I don't doubt that she knows what she's talking about.

(3) Sanders has mobilized the younger part of the electorate but that same rhetoric has failed to impress the 40+ crowd that actually makes up the majority of the voters. People want a workhorse, not a firebrand.

(4) Sanders has a lot of experience in one thing; Clinton has a wider breadth of experience.

(5) Sanders is, frankly, whiny. Complaining about a rigged primary that is, in no way, the reason why he's losing. Wah, wah superdelegates except that, if you awarded superdelegates proportionally or winner-takes-all by state, Sanders would still be losing by over 200 delegates. Add to that the fact that Sanders is only running as a Democrat (vs independent, Dem. Socialist, etc) purely for the convenience of ballot-access and he's that much more hypocritical. Most Democratic primary voters are, unsurprisingly, Democrats and typically ones invested in the party which is why they bother leaving the house on primary day. Someone whining about the system, who doesn't seem committed to helping the party long term and who acts like he'd happily sink our chances in November if he can't be on the ballot is a huge turn-off.

I don't expect you to agree with all that but that's a handful of reasons why Democratic primary voters are selecting Clinton over Sanders.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dohdough said:
Haha...you just described almost every politician EVER when telling us why you hate Clinton. Dude, WE GET IT. Even I don't think I have as much hate for anyone...well, maybe Ron Paul comes close, but I can't remember the last time I went out of my way to bash him.

Anywho, I think Booker is a good choice and that would certainly increase her favorability or at least electability among Bernie supporters, but because of how establishment she is, she'd probably pick someone like Deval Patrick or possibly one of the Castro Bros. The DNC should've run Elizabeth Warren. She comes off as genuine and had that fire that Clinton doesn't, while being far more polished than Bernie.

Either way, I think Trump has a serious chance of winning. All the pundits and polls say that he doesn't have the demographics, but I say never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. If Arnold and Ventura can get elected, Trump isn't that crazy of a possibility.
Click to expand...
I think Warren is on deck. Whether that's 4 or 8 years from now, we'll see but I'm thinking she's up next. It's something I look forward to, not just because of her beliefs, but because there's a little extra middle finger to the Republicans in the monster they created in refusing to confirm her for the CFPB.
 
Syntax Error said:
(1) Because centrist Democrats don't want a financial revolution or war on Wall Street. We have jobs and mortgages and stuff and while financial regulation is good, the "burn it down" attitude is a turn-off.
(2) Because much of Sanders' ideas are just plain unworkable. Example: You can't have free college when you're putting 33% of the burden on states which can't afford their current budgets. Sanders' New York Daily News interview was a fiasco where he couldn't explain his own policies or how the financial arms of government function. Clinton is a policy wonk and, she might lack charisma (might??), but I don't doubt that she knows what she's talking about.
(3) Sanders has mobilized the younger part of the electorate but that same rhetoric has failed to impress the 40+ crowd that actually makes up the majority of the voters. People want a workhorse, not a firebrand.
(4) Sanders has a lot of experience in one thing; Clinton has a wider breadth of experience.
(5) Sanders is, frankly, whiny. Complaining about a rigged primary that is, in no way, the reason why he's losing. Wah, wah superdelegates except that, if you awarded superdelegates proportionally or winner-takes-all by state, Sanders would still be losing by over 200 delegates. Add to that the fact that Sanders is only running as a Democrat (vs independent, Dem. Socialist, etc) purely for the convenience of ballot-access and he's that much more hypocritical. Most Democratic primary voters are, unsurprisingly, Democrats and typically ones invested in the party which is why they bother leaving the house on primary day. Someone whining about the system, who doesn't seem committed to helping the party long term and who acts like he'd happily sink our chances in November if he can't be on the ballot is a huge turn-off.

I don't expect you to agree with all that but that's a handful of reasons why Democratic primary voters are selecting Clinton over Sanders.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we'll never know the effect of not having a rigged superdelegate system. The effect on later primaries based on earlier primaries is pure speculation. Would she still be 200 votes ahead if there had been no superdelegates right out of the gate? We can only speculate.
 
RedvsBlue said:
I think Warren is on deck. Whether that's 4 or 8 years from now, we'll see but I'm thinking she's up next. It's something I look forward to, not just because of her beliefs, but because there's a little extra middle finger to the Republicans in the monster they created in refusing to confirm her for the CFPB.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's ever going to happen. I'd be happy if it did though! I also wish that Biden ran this time. Holy shit, the debates would be EPIC.

 
dohdough said:
Haha...you just described almost every politician EVER when telling us why you hate Clinton. Dude, WE GET IT. Even I don't think I have as much hate for anyone...well, maybe Ron Paul comes close, but I can't remember the last time I went out of my way to bash him.

Anywho, I think Booker is a good choice and that would certainly increase her favorability or at least electability among Bernie supporters, but because of how establishment she is, she'd probably pick someone like Deval Patrick or possibly one of the Castro Bros. The DNC should've run Elizabeth Warren. She comes off as genuine and had that fire that Clinton doesn't, while being far more polished than Bernie.

Either way, I think Trump has a serious chance of winning. All the pundits and polls say that he doesn't have the demographics, but I say never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. If Arnold and Ventura can get elected, Trump isn't that crazy of a possibility.
Click to expand...
I think for me it's intentional twisting of fact. That she had the entire party backing her from launch, Wasserman-Schultz as her pet. They didn't want candidateS, they wanted candidate. And when 68% of superdelegates pledged their support before the first vote was placed, that should be concerning to other candidates and to the confidence the country can have in the actions of the National Committees. In fact, I need to revise my "Bernie is getting crushed in popular vote" statement, because it appears there are some semantics and verbal acrobatics, to use that line:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-superdelegates-decide-wins-democratic-nomination-article-1.2642798

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/debunking-hillarys-specio_b_9972312.html

Historically (and I should say more accurately, over the last 16 years or so) we have seen centrist politicians radicalize for the primary, and then the general. For all intents and purposes, McCain was probably closer to an Independent than a Republican until he ran. Romney was one of the more "liberal-conservative" governors in recent memory. But they all radicalize to bring in the extremists from both parties, because that's where the passion lives. The middle 70% border on apathy, feel disenfranchised, and are tired of "their parent's parties". IMO THAT is what all politicians do.

Hillary's overt pandering has been as bad as Trump's race and culture baiting. As I posted in another thread, Hillary telling a black morning radio show that she carries her own hot sauce with her wherever she goes? I mean, fuck sake...could she have also devoted a few minutes to her favorite fried chicken and greens? Then "7 Ways Hillary is Like Your Abuela?" Motherfuck. I'd eat 10 taco bowls at Trump Tower before I would stomach thinking of ways that Hillary was like my grandmother. Thankfully, both erupted on social media, and backfired.

Then she wants to ride Obama's coattails when it's in a state that loves Obama. Other times she's riding Bill's. But then at the same time, she starts talking about how Bill will turn around this economy of Barack Obama's, so clearly he's the guy to be her main economic adviser. You can praise and criticize your former employer at the same time on different issues, that's fine, but maybe be less emphatic in your bragging of Obama's accomplishments as a whole, if you're going to do it.

I'm not an Elizabeth Warren fan, but I can respect that she too seems sincere, holds a position whether it be party line or otherwise, and has the gumption to have a personal view on things. But I think Gabbard is the more centrist, likable, and capable of the two. Booker-Gabbard, Gabbard-Booker, 2020!

 
dohdough said:
I don't think it's ever going to happen. I'd be happy if it did though! I also wish that Biden ran this time. Holy shit, the debates would be EPIC.
Click to expand...
When I heard Biden was considering running...I was giddy. I haven't voted Democrat in a Presidential election in my lifetime. I would have had he run. (and before everyone gets frothy and calls me some right wing fanatic, I have written myself in three times, and threw away a vote for Dole as an Oregonian, knowing my vote didn't matter. I haven't voted in other elections). This was the time I was ready to get behind a Democrat, then they failed, IMO of course.

 
dohdough said:
Trump being the Republican nominee says otherwise.
Click to expand...
"People", in this context, referring to the Democratic primary voters.

RedvsBlue said:
The problem is that we'll never know the effect of not having a rigged superdelegate system. The effect on later primaries based on earlier primaries is pure speculation. Would she still be 200 votes ahead if there had been no superdelegates right out of the gate? We can only speculate.
Click to expand...
Setting aside the "rigged" hyperbole, it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Few people take that stuff into consideration when casting a ballot. If anything, it probably cost Clinton more votes from people assuming it was in the bag than it cost Sanders votes. Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell of winning but he's still getting votes out now, why assume that it made the difference in February?

That said, the system we have is the system have had and Sanders knew what it was when he decided to hitch his wagon to the Democratic party out of convenience. Tons of time to learn the rules and make a strategy to win. If he failed to convince supers then that's his own fault. Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 and was outmaneuvered by a new guy who worked the landscape better than her campaign did. Clinton learned from that and has run a much better campaign this time and is winning as a result. The fact that Sanders is losing is on no one but Sanders and crying about superdelegates or whatever just looks childish and pathetic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
"People", in this context, referring to the Democratic primary voters.

Setting aside the "rigged" hyperbole, it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Few people take that stuff into consideration when casting a ballot. If anything, it probably cost Clinton more votes from people assuming it was in the bag than it cost Sanders votes. Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell of winning but he's still getting votes out now, why assume that it made the difference in February?

That said, the system we have is the system have had and Sanders knew what it was when he decided to hitch his wagon to the Democratic party out of convenience. Tons of time to learn the rules and make a strategy to win. If he failed to convince supers then that's his own fault. Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 and was outmaneuvered by a new guy who worked the landscape better than her campaign did. Clinton learned from that and has run a much better campaign this time and is winning as a result. The fact that Sanders is losing is on no one but Sanders and crying about superdelegates or whatever just looks childish and pathetic.
Click to expand...
I was all ready to post a response but looking at the 2 articles berzirk posted, that pretty much contains the entire basis of a response anyway. I'll just save the trouble of restating it in my own words.
 
Just as well since those articles were a joke.  Caucuses are very low population affairs compared to primaries.  Acting as though Clinton doesn't have millions more votes because they didn't count Maine or Washington caucus totals is ludicrous.  The idiot at HuffPo is trying to extrapolate off total state populations for caucuses from Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas and Utah where there's barely any Democratic presence.

I suppose this is what you do when you're losing and want to blame anyone but the campaign that's actually losing.

 
Here... take a look at this spreadsheet

Totals for the primaries and caucuses.  Take the Democratic totals for the states in the HuffPo article, match them against the percentages each candidate got and...

Sanders: 546,693 votes

Clinton: 266,843 votes

Add those to Clinton's 12,989,134 votes from RCP and Sanders 9,957,889 and you get...

Clinton: 13,255,977

Sanders: 10,504,582

Difference: +2,751,395 Clinton

The guy who wrote the HuffPo piece could have just as easily done this but it fits his agenda better to say "they never counted so Clinton might not have the lead!" than to do the math and say "Clinton is only leading by 2.75 million votes"

 
Syntax Error said:
"People", in this context, referring to the Democratic primary voters.

Setting aside the "rigged" hyperbole, it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Few people take that stuff into consideration when casting a ballot. If anything, it probably cost Clinton more votes from people assuming it was in the bag than it cost Sanders votes. Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell of winning but he's still getting votes out now, why assume that it made the difference in February?

That said, the system we have is the system have had and Sanders knew what it was when he decided to hitch his wagon to the Democratic party out of convenience. Tons of time to learn the rules and make a strategy to win. If he failed to convince supers then that's his own fault. Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 and was outmaneuvered by a new guy who worked the landscape better than her campaign did. Clinton learned from that and has run a much better campaign this time and is winning as a result. The fact that Sanders is losing is on no one but Sanders and crying about superdelegates or whatever just looks childish and pathetic.
Click to expand...
So just to be clear, you have no problem with the rules, and you think it's fine to have 68% of superdelegates pledge support for a candidate before a single vote has been cast in the primary? Hmm, I wouldn't support that type of a structure, especially since the repeatedly stated, and explicit goal was to prevent a populist candidate from "hijacking the party" and running a campaign that flew in the face of what the party establishment wanted. I mean...the whole goal was to put a check in place in case a full on democracy was working too democratically.

And we can all postulate, but registered Democrats want a Democrat to win. If they are being told from the onset by their local senators congressmen & women, and other insiders that they are supporting one candidate over another, if you respect that superdelegate, and you buy in to the narrative that they are the chosen candidate, I most definitely think people's view could be swayed and biased to support the front-runner or person the establishment is endorsing. The irony is that if registered Democrats want to do all they can to ensure a Democrat win the Presidency, they should start looking at who polls best against Donald Trump nationally and that's...

********************************************************************************************** [edited by Debbie Wasserman Schulz] :D

 
berzirk said:
So just to be clear, you have no problem with the rules, and you think it's fine to have 68% of superdelegates pledge support for a candidate before a single vote has been cast in the primary?
Click to expand...
Of course. Why wouldn't I be? The role of superdelegates is to independently make a choice of which candidate would be best for the party. They don't need to wait for a vote to be cast because their choice isn't intended to be based on the popular vote. The only reason to be upset by this is if you fail to understand how superdelegates operate or what their function is.

But superdelegates aren't bound to their first choice, either. When Obama started beating Clinton in the primaries, Clinton lost superdelegates to him. Sanders is just failing to make the case. The best he has is some general election polling that no one who is politically savvy cares about because they all know that "largely unknown senator" polling isn't going to hold up under a negative campaign.

Again, no one made Sanders run as a Democrat. He sure didn't do it because he cares about the Democratic Party. If he wanted guaranteed ballot access, he could have run as an independent instead of throwing a hissy fit that he's losing and calling the system rigged just because he didn't campaign as well as he needed to.

 
Syntax Error said:
Of course. Why wouldn't I be? The role of superdelegates is to independently make a choice of which candidate would be best for the party. They don't need to wait for a vote to be cast because their choice isn't intended to be based on the popular vote. The only reason to be upset by this is if you fail to understand how superdelegates operate or what their function is.

But superdelegates aren't bound to their first choice, either. When Obama started beating Clinton in the primaries, Clinton lost superdelegates to him. Sanders is just failing to make the case. The best he has is some general election polling that no one who is politically savvy cares about because they all know that "largely unknown senator" polling isn't going to hold up under a negative campaign.

Again, no one made Sanders run as a Democrat. He sure didn't do it because he cares about the Democratic Party. If he wanted guaranteed ballot access, he could have run as an independent instead of throwing a hissy fit that he's losing and calling the system rigged just because he didn't campaign as well as he needed to.
Click to expand...
Alright, well, I guess we just really disagree on that topic. I am pretty sickened by the role and purpose of superdelegates. They are literally in place, to make sure someone really popular that won't be in the establishment's best interest comes along and wins a primary. To me, that happening is called democracy, and should be welcomed.

Actually, I just looked up the GOP superdelegate rules (which I'm quite sure will be changed after Trump sweeping through and winning the people's nomination).

http://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year

Notable quotes:

"The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state's national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates."

"The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The Republican National Committee ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that's the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates."

So not only does the GOP have far fewer superdelegates, but they also require they vote the way their state voted...because you know, will of the people and such. Dang man, I don't know. I just can't see a scenario where anyone should be proud of the way the superdelegate system was implemented on the Democrat side. I understand that all candidates new these were the rules, but IMO, those are shitty rules. It seems to cheapen democracy, and move closer to (which let's face it, it's what we really have) a plutocracy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Becoming a party nominee is not a democratic process though and was never intended to be a purely democratic process.  Political parties are, by their very nature, not populist devices.  Complaining that they're not acting like a pure democracy misses the point of what a political party is.

The quoted portions of your story aren't entirely accurate if you're trying to imply that the GOP process is much more "democratic".  For example, witness the nomination process from the Colorado or Pennsylvania Republican caucuses.

If Sanders (or Trump who also incessantly whined about his party's process) want a purely democratic process, it's simple: You run as an independent and collect enough ballot signatures in every state to make it onto that state's ballot.  So, assuming you can get enough popular support, you're guaranteed a spot.  But that's a long, expensive process and you lose the benefits of party backing.  So they would rather glom onto an existing party to get the benefits and then throw hissy fits about the rules, like joining a softball league and becoming irate that they're not playing basketball like you hoped.

I think there's a lot less there to be proud of when someone who never supported an organization before comes in and starts demanding rule changes (including threatening revolt) because they want to have their cake and eat it too.  But then I don't need to convince you one way or the other -- Democrats have already given Clinton an insurmountable lead with or without superdelegates.

 
Agreed that the party doesn't care much about democracy, they care about getting their person elected, and keeping the powerful in power. An organized third party could have swept this election.  To go Batman, the country is getting what we deserve.

 
berzirk said:
Agreed that the party doesn't care much about democracy
Click to expand...
In terms of the method by which they determine the best candidate for them to support? No, not really. Neither party does. No party in our nation's history has. Because that's not what a political party is or does.

Amusing Washington Post piece that I saw minutes after posting my softball/basketball comparison. :p

 
Syntax Error said:
In terms of the method by which they determine the best candidate for them to support? No, not really. Neither party does. No party in our nation's history has. Because that's not what a political party is or does.

Amusing Washington Post piece that I saw minutes after posting my softball/basketball comparison. :p
Click to expand...
Ehh, I can only partially get on board with the comparisons. Certainly you can at least admit that the DNC has said and done things which could be interpreted by a rational person, to have given Hillary an advantage. Number of debates, timing of debates. Wasserman-Schulz' condemnation of some NV event...that now as more videos come through seem to be less and less proof of mass protests and violence. Odd outcomes, like winning something like 8 straight coin tosses or something. I can't even remember the details on half of it.

I mean...Tulsi Gabbard felt so disenfranchised in the process that she dropped out of DNC leadership so she could openly support Sanders. For someone who wants to have a long political career, that could be looked at as greatly passionate, or career suicide.

They started Hillary with an enormous headstart, she was the presumptive nominee when it all started, and they wanted this thing to be over many, many months ago because they thought they had their unified candidate waiting in the wings since 2012. They forgot how unlikable she was, and the warts that they hoped they could cover up. The enthusiasm that the Sanders campaign has drummed up has brought more people into the process, and the establishment folks aren't happy about it. It means she might need to pick one or two Sanders supporters for cabinet and political positions and Clinton Foundation roles. instead of getting to payback the supers for all that support.

 
I know it's comforting to assume that supers supported Clinton for "payback" but Clinton isn't going to be "paying back" hundreds of people in any meaningful way even if she was so inclined.

Supers are supporting Clinton because they are people who have worked hard within the party for the party and see Clinton as the candidate who is in the party's best interests.  People from public service on all levels from mayors to state reps to federal reps.  People who've worked in the trenches for years to get people registered and work the fundraising and voting efforts.  She simply offers much more to those people than some guy who never gave a shit about the party before and only attached himself now for convenience.  Then cries that people who've spent their lives trying to make the party successful won't support him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
apparently our very own CheapyD doesn't want anyone voting for Trump and will blacklist and block people on twitter who call him out on it.

I thought he was a better person than that. Guess I was wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bizz said:
apparently our very own CheapyD doesn't want anyone voting for Trump and will blacklist and block people on twitter who call him out on it.

I thought he was a better person than that. Guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...
Cool story bro. Is this on his personal Twitter account? I mean, he's allowed to block whoever he wants.

 
If you want Bernie Sanders' policies to work, why don't you vote for Congressmen, Senators, City Councilmen, Mayors, Governors, etc who stand a better chance of actually writing the laws to implement them. It reminds me about what the current President said about "good legislation." Good legislation is designed to fit the needs not the wants of the general populace. But we keep electing the same morons who decide to tack enough pork to line their own suits with grease.

I may not be enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, but at least she isn't going on television demonizing poor and/or brown people as much as Trump does. I thought we lived in 2016, but Trump supporters want to send us back to the good old days, like the Gilded Age. And by god, people are cool with Trump being buddies with Russia?

Oh yeah, this is Libertarianism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like a good topic to stick this in, as the topic was shifted to this direction for awhile.

So, Sanders supporters (ones who donated) are suing the DNC for fraud, stating that the DNC was not impartial, giving Clinton preferential treatment - which we all *knew*, but with the recent DNC leaked emails, there's now proof.

Except that the DNC is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out because the plaintiffs should have known that the DNC was favoring Hillary.
 
UncleBob said:
Seems like a good topic to stick this in, as the topic was shifted to this direction for awhile.

So, Sanders supporters (ones who donated) are suing the DNC for fraud, stating that the DNC was not impartial, giving Clinton preferential treatment - which we all *knew*, but with the recent DNC leaked emails, there's now proof.

Except that the DNC is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out because the plaintiffs should have known that the DNC was favoring Hillary.
Click to expand...
It would be comical if this wasn't real life. I don't know if it makes me admire Hillary for the fact that she can constantly break the rules and at worst get her wrist slaps, or if it reinforces my hatred for her. When talking about quality candidates, when people rave about her realistic policies and vision for the future...she is running a CLOSE CONTEST against a buffoon like Donald Trump. You can blame it on racists and xenophobes, but it would be a gross over-generalization to say that's Trumps entire support group. Anyone else running on the Democratic ticket would have Trump beat by 15 points and they would be on to naming cabinet positions publicly right now.

These are the worst two candidates who have run in my lifetime.

 
Virtually all sane Republican candidates would be stomping Hillary.
Virtually all sane Democrat candidates would be stomping Trump.
 
UncleBob said:
Virtually all sane Republican candidates would be stomping Hillary.
Virtually all sane Democrat candidates would be stomping Trump.
Click to expand...
And the sad part is that a majority of sane voters from both parties, somehow landed on these two dirtbags as the "best".

I just hope that the disdain for these two is enough to build momentum for third party candidates to start from a higher position in 4 years.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top