Democratic Election Thread

[BigRedBuster]

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.

[Danny Bateman]

Right enough to do very well, crazy enough to not win? I agree with that general sentiment.

 

I've long thought that Bernie does a pretty good idea sniffing out issues the average American cares about. But his plans to try to address them are completely wacko. Like, I really hate his plans. I don't think they'd work. Which is too bad, because I generally agree with his diagnosis.

[zoogs]

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 think in the context of American democracy, this is a "feature", and not a bug.

 

It's not a great feature, to be sure. But it underscores the balances for which we strive: processes that are more democratic will tend to lend power to lowest-common-denominator forces like this. Anger and fear are strong motivators. On the other hand, if elite institutions not only command too much power but fail at being effective, how can people continue to accept the fact that they act as a bulwark against popular caprice?

 

The Atlantic had a really worthwhile article on this recently, one of several musings on how our democracy works and how its legitimacy is viewed. Here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-downside-of-democracy/484415/

 

When Woodrow Wilson proposed [a popular-vote nomination system], the idea was that the types of appeals made to the public would be high-minded, and we would have these very deliberative debates by great statesmen. The minute this got underway, though, people started believing more in propaganda, public relations, and advertising.

I don't think there are clear or straightforward answers. Just ongoing observations and discussion. You have to be able to detach yourself a bit from the weeds of the campaign season, though. And see every campaign for what it is: a bid for power aligning itself with whatever interests and tactics it needs to in order to survive.

 

In that sense, they're a product of the realities of what works and what doesn't. For all the consternation about how rigged the system is (for example, Citizens United ...), it's really easy to lose sight that people themselves are stll very powerful, and very malleable forces that shape our politics. For better or for worse.

 

In my mind, the simple idealistic answer is more education for everybody. But I don't think it's really that simple. Smart people are still people, and just as susceptible to appeals to base instincts and emotion. That will never change. And it would be great, obviously, if the norms that have sustained us to date are respected. But how do we maintain that without *imposing* incumbent orders, protecting them from change even when they are sorely in need of it?

[HuskerShark]

 

She's leading him by 767 delegates. There is 475 delegates in California but it's not a winner take all state. So, at most, it looks like they will split them. All she needs is 71 more to secure the nomination.

 

I'm failing to see where she is "struggling to put topple him".

 

Well when counting actual votes won, the delegate count is 1769 to 1501. I'm not saying she is not leading, but she has taken much longer to secure the Dem nomination in a 3 or 4 person field than Trump did in a 16 person field, and the candidates on the GOP side were much stronger that Trump toppled than what Hillary had to deal with. I'm not discounting Bernie's success with the far left elements of the Democratic party either.

Not to mention if the superdelegates hadn't pledged to Clinton early on it would not have swayed voters nearly as much and more potentially could have voted for Sanders.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

She's leading him by 767 delegates. There is 475 delegates in California but it's not a winner take all state. So, at most, it looks like they will split them. All she needs is 71 more to secure the nomination.

 

I'm failing to see where she is "struggling to put topple him".

Well when counting actual votes won, the delegate count is 1769 to 1501. I'm not saying she is not leading, but she has taken much longer to secure the Dem nomination in a 3 or 4 person field than Trump did in a 16 person field, and the candidates on the GOP side were much stronger that Trump toppled than what Hillary had to deal with. I'm not discounting Bernie's success with the far left elements of the Democratic party either.

Not to mention if the superdelegates hadn't pledged to Clinton early on it would not have swayed voters nearly as much and more potentially could have voted for Sanders.

 

 

I get that the Dems have the proportional delegate system which may naturally cause races to last longer, but here are a few key points.

 

1. Hillary would be the first female POTUS, and it seems Dem voters don't care about that as much as you would think given how close the race currently is with Bernie.

 

2. Bill has always been loved by Dems, but perhaps Clinton fatigue is setting in just as Bush fatigue did.

 

3. As I stated earlier, Hillary had only 2 main competitors as Webb dropped out early. While the RNC process has more WTA states, having 16 candidates also should prolong the process. I'm frankly suprised the GOP did not have a brokered convention, but I think most voters saw the appeal Trump has been having, and they also realize what a disaster Hillary will be, especially if she continues on the past 8 years of failed policies, so many have since jumped on the Trump train.

[teachercd]

That person is "struggling" because this race was supposed to be over but it is "not" even though we know who is going to win. That person looks like a bit of a loser now and can't concentrate their efforts where they would like to concentrate them. It should have been over a month ago. Sadly, it is not.

 

Also, going back to Wilson? Interesting. I am guessing most have not done a lot of studying on him and things he believed in.

[Moiraine]

Comparing Trump in the primaries to Clinton in the primaries is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

You can look just at New York and it tells the whole story for you. Clinton won 58% of the vote and got 139 of 247 delegates. Trump won 60.4% of the vote and got 89 of 95 delegates. The Republicans also have lots of winner-take-all states. The Democrats have none.

 

Both processes are "unfair" in their own ways. Although... they're not unfair at all. If I start a political party I can do my primaries weird ways if I want. What's unfair (which I've stated many times) is that these parties can throw so much money at this thing. I like Sanders but I get sick of people talking about how mistreated he is. He's been a Democrat for less than 2 years.

[teachercd]

Comparing Trump in the primaries to Clinton in the primaries is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

You can look just at New York and it tells the whole story for you. Clinton won 58% of the vote and got 139 of 247 delegates. Trump won 60.4% of the vote and got 89 of 95 delegates. The Republicans also have lots of winner-take-all states. The Democrats have none.

 

Both processes are "unfair" in their own ways. Although... they're not unfair at all. If I start a political party I can do my primaries weird ways if I want. What's unfair (which I've stated many times) is that these parties can throw so much money at this thing. I like Sanders but I get sick of people talking about how mistreated he is. He's been a Democrat for less than 2 years.

This is a really good post.

[HuskerNation1]

Comparing Trump in the primaries to Clinton in the primaries is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

You can look just at New York and it tells the whole story for you. Clinton won 58% of the vote and got 139 of 247 delegates. Trump won 60.4% of the vote and got 89 of 95 delegates. The Republicans also have lots of winner-take-all states. The Democrats have none.

 

Both processes are "unfair" in their own ways. Although... they're not unfair at all. If I start a political party I can do my primaries weird ways if I want. What's unfair (which I've stated many times) is that these parties can throw so much money at this thing. I like Sanders but I get sick of people talking about how mistreated he is. He's been a Democrat for less than 2 years.

 

I think we all understand that the two nominating processes are different, but the Democrats have had superdelegates since the 1980s, and this seems to be the first year they are lopsided toward one candidate and could (Sanders would have to win out most likely) make the difference. The media seemed to focus the entire primary season on Trump and the fact that he was destroying the Republican party. Every day I woke up and read a new article on that topic. Yet here we sit in June and its the Democrats who are in disarray. I'm not stating all GOP members are on board with Trump, but the media narrative this primary season does not seem to be matching the reality we are seeing now.

 

I do think you made a good point at the end that Sanders and his supporters overplay being mistreated. I think he also overplays being an outsider. The guy has been in elected office for 30-plus years. Trump, Carson, and to an extent Fiorina were the only true outsiders in this election. And as I stated in prior posts, I don't think this election is going to hinge on any one hot button issue. It's going to be a race between the outsider (Trump) and the ultimate insider (Hillary), and if people are angry enough with politics as usual, Trump will win. If they want to maintain the status quo, Hillary will win.

[Danny Bateman]

Comparing Trump in the primaries to Clinton in the primaries is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

You can look just at New York and it tells the whole story for you. Clinton won 58% of the vote and got 139 of 247 delegates. Trump won 60.4% of the vote and got 89 of 95 delegates. The Republicans also have lots of winner-take-all states. The Democrats have none.

 

Both processes are "unfair" in their own ways. Although... they're not unfair at all. If I start a political party I can do my primaries weird ways if I want. What's unfair (which I've stated many times) is that these parties can throw so much money at this thing. I like Sanders but I get sick of people talking about how mistreated he is. He's been a Democrat for less than 2 years.

Less than a year, if you're talking about when he officially declared.

 

He changed his registration in September of last year.

 

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/17/1422309/-BREAKING-Bernie-to-officially-Register-as-a-Democratic

[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

[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.

[Danny Bateman]

Want an inside into the pure, unleaded white-hot discontent of a hardcore Bernie supporter?

Here it is.

 

Man, I for one found that to be some pretentious stuff. I get that that was there viewpoint, but I couldn't even finish that piece. But I'm one of those guys that think the "Bernie or Bust" is very much overblown.

[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

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

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.