Democratic Election Thread

[mrandyk]

Well, the Republican nomination was a cluster F*** from the beginning. It never was about issues, it was about who can insult whom the most and the gullible voters lapped up the fact that someone had the gall to stand on stage and insult someone. I'm not taking that as some great political feat based on facts and issues especially when the guy who won is the most dishonest candidate still running.

 

I'm also just about the farthest thing from a socialist. However, if you take away the word "socialist" from Bernie, he talks about issues that a large amount of the population cares about. The problem is, he gets people interested and then goes so far it's into wacko range. An example is cost of education. I don't know of any normal American that doesn't think the cost of college is ridiculous. So....he has a lot of people's attention with that, especially young people. Then....instead of being reasonable on the subject, he goes bonkers and proclaims that it should be free. The average young person doesn't care about that, they just hear free college. Then, you throw in that there simply is a segment of the population that is simply sick and tired of Clintons....(even Democrats).

 

I'm not surprised it's taken this long to send Bernie packing.

Education should either be free or at the least a small enough expense that anyone can attain it without agonizing debt. It's a common good and we would benefit much more from a highly educated population than what so much of our money is currently being diverted to. It's a damn joke that the cost of higher education has all but been put on the student.

[Moiraine]

Sanders is starting to look like an a*hole now. He says he won't give up after the voting is over. He's going to fight for superdelegates. As "unfair" as they are, Clinton has won 3 million more votes than he has. The number of votes is far more important than the delegate count to the voters. If he was actually leading in the number of voters I'd be all for it.

[HuskerShark]

Props to him for not backing down. Somebody has to challenge the establishment so good for him.

[teachercd]

Props to him for not backing down. Somebody has to challenge the establishment so good for him.

Amen

[Moiraine]

 

Props to him for not backing down. Somebody has to challenge the establishment so good for him.

Amen

 

 

 

Props to him for not backing down. Somebody has to challenge the establishment so good for him.

 

 

The "establishment" candidate is who the Democrats voted for. Isn't that what matters? I would have voted for Sanders if I was a Democrat, but a loss is a loss.

[teachercd]

Maybe, but I think there was a lot of honor it and not quitting. But we all know that you won't win.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

Hillary is on the trail claiming that she restored world support for the US during her tenure, but support actually fell during her time as SOS. Now i'm not one who believes we as Americans should be infatuated with getting the world to like us (as Obama seemed to be when he went on his apology tour), but the real story here is Hillary trying to find some strength she can present to the American people, and the data simply does not back her up. And this comes from Bloomberg which is traditionally supportive of Democratic candidates.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-02/did-hillary-clinton-really-restore-america-s-reputation-in-the-world

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored.

 

You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

 

Hmmmmm..... Not.

 

 

Not what...

[Army_Allen]

Sanders is starting to look like an a*hole now. He says he won't give up after the voting is over. He's going to fight for superdelegates. As "unfair" as they are, Clinton has won 3 million more votes than he has. The number of votes is far more important than the delegate count to the voters. If he was actually leading in the number of voters I'd be all for it.

Most of her votes were attained before he had any name recognition, as well as many states had strict voting policies that stopped new younger voters from turning out, not to mention absentee votes that occurred before Bernie even announced he was running.

[Moiraine]

 

 

Hillary is on the trail claiming that she restored world support for the US during her tenure, but support actually fell during her time as SOS. Now i'm not one who believes we as Americans should be infatuated with getting the world to like us (as Obama seemed to be when he went on his apology tour), but the real story here is Hillary trying to find some strength she can present to the American people, and the data simply does not back her up. And this comes from Bloomberg which is traditionally supportive of Democratic candidates.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-02/did-hillary-clinton-really-restore-america-s-reputation-in-the-world

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored.

 

 

 

You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

 

 

 

That those are considered apologies cracks me up. People need to look up the definition.

 

That being said, why should we go around pretending we're perfect? The U.S. has done some f*ed up things. One of those quotes is talking about slavery and segregation. Why should we pretend those didn't happen?

[mrandyk]

 

Sanders is starting to look like an a*hole now. He says he won't give up after the voting is over. He's going to fight for superdelegates. As "unfair" as they are, Clinton has won 3 million more votes than he has. The number of votes is far more important than the delegate count to the voters. If he was actually leading in the number of voters I'd be all for it.

Most of her votes were attained before he had any name recognition, as well as many states had strict voting policies that stopped new younger voters from turning out, not to mention absentee votes that occurred before Bernie even announced he was running.

 

Bernie was pretty well known at the Iowa caucus, finishing in a virtual tie with Hillary. I think he did a good job getting his name made known in time.

[Army_Allen]

 

 

Sanders is starting to look like an a*hole now. He says he won't give up after the voting is over. He's going to fight for superdelegates. As "unfair" as they are, Clinton has won 3 million more votes than he has. The number of votes is far more important than the delegate count to the voters. If he was actually leading in the number of voters I'd be all for it.

Most of her votes were attained before he had any name recognition, as well as many states had strict voting policies that stopped new younger voters from turning out, not to mention absentee votes that occurred before Bernie even announced he was running.

 

Bernie was pretty well known at the Iowa caucus, finishing in a virtual tie with Hillary. I think he did a good job getting his name made known in time.

 

Many of the earlier big states had rules to where you had to be a registered voter for 6 months to a year to cast a vote. He hadn't been known that long. prior to the Primaries.

[Danny Bateman]

New York is the only one that I heard of that had excessively early registration switch dates for people who weren't Dems. It was abour a month before the primary that you had to be registered as a Dem. That's too early, but NY has been stupid like that for a long time.

 

Furthermore, one of the great hypocrisies of Bernie in my mind is that he speaks out against closed primaries because they disallow independents, but defends caucuses. Did my first caucus this year and it was interesting. But damn if it isn't a stupid way to vote in 2016.You have to go spend four hours+ on a Saturday standing around in a messy mob instead of 5 minutes walking in and filling out your ballot on a Tuesday (with no set time). Caucuses massively benefitted Sanders because of his extremely dedicated supporters, and they suppress the vote much more than closed primaries.

 

Relevant FiveThirtyEight article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

 

The fact he spoke out to decry closed primaries and defend caucuses leads me to think he's just doing what's good for Bernie and not necessarily democracy.

 

Also, superdelegates are around for a reason. They were implemented so the Dems don't nominate another McGovern or lame duck Carter and get their ass kicked. Look up the electoral college maps from 1972 or 1980 to see my point. As much as Sanders supporters despise superdelegates, they're there to safeguard against an unelectable candidate. They could've prevented a Trump.

 

As to what to do with them, I think they should stay. But perhaps 20% of total delegates being super is a bit high, and perhaps they should not be announced until the convention. That way, party leaders can still endorse candidates. But no one knows which supers are backing who and the media won't report them to give an artificial lead.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

Hillary is on the trail claiming that she restored world support for the US during her tenure, but support actually fell during her time as SOS. Now i'm not one who believes we as Americans should be infatuated with getting the world to like us (as Obama seemed to be when he went on his apology tour), but the real story here is Hillary trying to find some strength she can present to the American people, and the data simply does not back her up. And this comes from Bloomberg which is traditionally supportive of Democratic candidates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-02/did-hillary-clinton-really-restore-america-s-reputation-in-the-world

 

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored.

 

You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

Hmmmmm..... Not.

Not what...

I only read the first 3, but like Moiraine said, thise are not apologies. Even if he did apologize what the hell is wrong with that? We've f'd up quite a few things as a nation, and turned a blind eye to them.

[zoogs]

America sets a model example for a global superpower. Can you imagine Russia, China, or Turkey, in our shoes?

 

Russia leaves little to the imagination.

Turkey is busy throwing a fit at Germany for recognizing the Ottoman genocide of Armenians a century ago.

China just celebrated another 6-4 day with another shutdown and whitewashing of any mention of Tiananmen Square.

 

Petulance and hostility aren't likely to secure any more nice words or anything more than ill-got, short-term concessions from the international community. No global hegemon should act that way, as we'll well know some day in the distant future when the shoe might be on the other foot.

 

We're not without our warts, but I disagree with those who see all this as weakness and cause for panic. I think things like visiting Hiroshima is leadership.

[Army_Allen]

New York is the only one that I heard of that had excessively early registration switch dates for people who weren't Dems. It was abour a month before the primary that you had to be registered as a Dem. That's too early, but NY has been stupid like that for a long time.

 

Furthermore, one of the great hypocrisies of Bernie in my mind is that he speaks out against closed primaries because they disallow independents, but defends caucuses. Did my first caucus this year and it was interesting. But damn if it isn't a stupid way to vote in 2016.You have to go spend four hours+ on a Saturday standing around in a messy mob instead of 5 minutes walking in and filling out your ballot on a Tuesday (with no set time). Caucuses massively benefitted Sanders because of his extremely dedicated supporters, and they suppress the vote much more than closed primaries.

 

Relevant FiveThirtyEight article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

 

The fact he spoke out to decry closed primaries and defend caucuses leads me to think he's just doing what's good for Bernie and not necessarily democracy.

 

Also, superdelegates are around for a reason. They were implemented so the Dems don't nominate another McGovern or lame duck Carter and get their ass kicked. Look up the electoral college maps from 1972 or 1980 to see my point. As much as Sanders supporters despise superdelegates, they're there to safeguard against an unelectable candidate. They could've prevented a Trump.

 

As to what to do with them, I think they should stay. But perhaps 20% of total delegates being super is a bit high, and perhaps they should not be announced until the convention. That way, party leaders can still endorse candidates. But no one knows which supers are backing who and the media won't report them to give an artificial lead.

 

New York is the only one that I heard of that had excessively early registration switch dates for people who weren't Dems. It was abour a month before the primary that you had to be registered as a Dem. That's too early, but NY has been stupid like that for a long time.

 

Furthermore, one of the great hypocrisies of Bernie in my mind is that he speaks out against closed primaries because they disallow independents, but defends caucuses. Did my first caucus this year and it was interesting. But damn if it isn't a stupid way to vote in 2016.You have to go spend four hours+ on a Saturday standing around in a messy mob instead of 5 minutes walking in and filling out your ballot on a Tuesday (with no set time). Caucuses massively benefitted Sanders because of his extremely dedicated supporters, and they suppress the vote much more than closed primaries.

 

Relevant FiveThirtyEight article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

 

The fact he spoke out to decry closed primaries and defend caucuses leads me to think he's just doing what's good for Bernie and not necessarily democracy.

 

Also, superdelegates are around for a reason. They were implemented so the Dems don't nominate another McGovern or lame duck Carter and get their ass kicked. Look up the electoral college maps from 1972 or 1980 to see my point. As much as Sanders supporters despise superdelegates, they're there to safeguard against an unelectable candidate. They could've prevented a Trump.

 

As to what to do with them, I think they should stay. But perhaps 20% of total delegates being super is a bit high, and perhaps they should not be announced until the convention. That way, party leaders can still endorse candidates. But no one knows which supers are backing who and the media won't report them to give an artificial lead.

But in this election in particular Bernie is the more favorable matchup against Trump. I don't know if Hilary had widened her margin but last I saw she was around 6 points nationally above trump and with the ~4 percent margin of error that's a little too close for me to risk Trump getting into office.