US Presidential Race

Pedram wrote:Hillary is very lucky she's facing a bunch of nutcases, if Republican party could elect a moderate like Kasich i could see her losing and the and the recent polls shows it's possible. the problem with Hillary is that she's not a charismatic candidate like Obama and her supporters aren't as enthusiastic as Sanders supporters.

Her non enthusiastic supporters have her with lead over Sanders in popular vote by nearly 3 million. The internet skews perception.

rincon wrote:A democratic party shouldn't be like the school or company. The way the system is setup it is extremelly difficult for a third party to run with a realistic chance of victory. If more parties were in the mix and had a chance of being successful then it'd be ok. But thats not the case with the current system.

If the people are pushed to choose from just 2 parties then those have to worry less about self-survival and more about the people's will. Otherwise you get a distortion of democracy. You can say that they are private organizations and can do whatever they want, but then you also can't argue that election process is truly democratic. With a bypartisan system its one or the other, not both.

Why are super delegates assigned from the start? I know they can change, but it has a significant impact on the people's perception of a candidate if the establishment is already behind one. Sanders' run has felt like even more of an uphill battle when Hillary starts with 10% of the votes on her side. That is literally swaying the election. There is no other reason for pledging super delegates before the convention other than manipulating the election to your side.

The thing about America is if you are unhappy with the way the organization is run, you are free to start your own. Would it be hard? Yes, but if the popularity is there then surely it can be done.

Uphill battle for Sanders you say? I mean, you make it seem like Bernie Sanders just recently joined the party after making a career running against them...oh wait, that is the case isn't it? Hillary has those super delegates because she has been a member of the democratic party for DECADES. She has raised money for them for DECADES. She has campaigned for their candidates for DECADES. You are not in reality if you don't think that stands for something, especially against a guy who has ran against and beat democrats. The fact he had a single super delegate is proof of their usefulness in judgement.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Agreed with BC, super delegates are undemocratic and stupid. Up there with lobbying and how accepted it is in the U.S. Well, lobbying is even worse, but both distort the will of the people, i.e. democracy.

Are you able to vote on who is president of the company you work for? The School you went to? The democratic party is an organization just like those.  Also the will of the people happens in most cases. Obama was the more popular and electable choice in 08, and the super delegates went to him. Same will happen this year with Hillary. The will of the people is never in doubt.

It amazes me how you could even compare a democratic party to a school principal. How are these similar at all? Clearly you have a very undemocratic view of how a democracy should work.

I am comparing them as organizations. One does not question democracy if they can't elect people who are in charge of other organizations they are a part of, nor should they be angry when they don't have complete say in other organizations. The people have majority of the vote in the democratic primary system. What they want ultimately, by most measures, is what will happen. The super delegates there are a simple balance to make sure the people put up someone who is electable. I understand not liking them, but they serve a very important point.

Super delegates were designed to maintain status quo inside the Democratic party, to make sure the party don't sway too much to the left, and the only group of people who suffers the most from this system are young liberal/progressives who have no chances of electing their favorite president through the Democratic party, instead they're being consistently duped to vote for so-called liberals who won't actually push their agenda.

Democrats have only had control over the house for 4 years since 1995.

If you want to know where our hope and change went, there's your answer. It isn't because we just haven't elected a president progressive enough.

We need democrats to win in red states in order to get control over anything, and be able to pass anything. But democrats in Missouri or Arkansas if they win can kiss relection goodbye if they push through or vote for socialist/sweeping far left policies.

A more moderate agenda is the only way to accomplish anything or make any real progress over time. Pushing too fast too quickly is what leads to slaughtering in midterms, and changes the party in control in congress. For people who say "Obama didn't do enough, wasn't liberal enough in 09/10," tell that to conservatives. What they thought of the administration's agenda. Most republicans that are asked will say Obama is the most liberal and uncompromising President ever.

a 50 state strategy to retake the house and congress is a must going forward. DWS needs to get lost because the party suffering at the local level has a lot to do with her incompetence as well.

rincon wrote:A democratic party shouldn't be like the school or company. The way the system is setup it is extremelly difficult for a third party to run with a realistic chance of victory. If more parties were in the mix and had a chance of being successful then it'd be ok. But thats not the case with the current system.

If the people are pushed to choose from just 2 parties then those have to worry less about self-survival and more about the people's will. Otherwise you get a distortion of democracy. You can say that they are private organizations and can do whatever they want, but then you also can't argue that election process is truly democratic. With a bypartisan system its one or the other, not both.

Why are super delegates assigned from the start? I know they can change, but it has a significant impact on the people's perception of a candidate if the establishment is already behind one. Sanders' run has felt like even more of an uphill battle when Hillary starts with 10% of the votes on her side. That is literally swaying the election. There is no other reason for pledging super delegates before the convention other than manipulating the election to your side.

The super delegates have never decided an election before and they've been in place since the 80s.

If Bernie were to win the primary, the super delegates would swing to support him because the back lash they would suffer from not giving him the nomination even though he got the most votes would be too damaging. Does anyone think that the Democratic party really wanted Obama to get the nomination over Hillary in 08? If they had their way, they would have given it to Hillary. But Obama won fair and square and the super delegates at the convention switched their votes. Even Hillary and Bill themselves voted for Obama at the convention. How much impact they have over the process is over stated as they will, outside of an event like a Trump like insurgency, vote the way of the pledged delegates.

That's where you're wrong vendetta...  super delegates are never going to support Bernie because he's basically a socialist.  He'd get absolutely torched in a general election because no republican would ever vote for him and neither would the people in the center.

That's the issue the Republicans have with Trump too... he's too extreme.  

Most of the voters in the US don't participate in primaries because they're neither staunch republicans nor staunch democrats... they're in the middle.  The establishment in both parties know that.  So they're going to do whatever they can to have a candidate represent them that has the most mass appeal.

V even  if they were to change their minds  (and what you're arguing for is that they are useless so why keep them anyways?)  they affect the perception that Hillary has an insurmountable lead and that she has already won, so why go vote for Sanders at all? Why stay interested in the race?

Because it's not about winning or losing for Bernie Sanders supporters BC... they're very cultish and just want their message heard.

Since Hillary knows she's won, she's not going after Sanders at all because she doesn't want to anger his supporters come the general election. If by some miracle the primary gets closer, she will go after him hard and he'll crumble... because his policy suggestions are utter nonsense.

sportsczy wrote:That's where you're wrong vendetta...  super delegates are never going to support Bernie because he's basically a socialist.  He'd get absolutely torched in a general election because no republican would ever vote for him and neither would the people in the center.

That's the issue the Republicans have with Trump too... he's too extreme.  

Most of the voters in the US don't participate in primaries because they're neither staunch republicans nor staunch democrats... they're in the middle.  The establishment in both parties know that.  So they're going to do whatever they can to have a candidate represent them that has the most mass appeal.

I don't believe that Trump and Sanders are comparable in regards to how the party would handle them winning the most pledged delegates.

Trump's unfavorables are historic and his views are dangerous. The party would be able to make the argument to the public that even though he won, that if they had a superdelegate process in place they would be justified for using the votes to hand it to someone else.

Democratic voters, if Sanders were to actually win the nomination, wouldn't be able to be swayed the same way. They wouldn't deny him of the nomination for the same reasons they didn't deny Obama.

Denying Sanders the nomination and giving it to someone who didn't win the most votes or delegates would be more politically damaging to the party than Sanders' leftist views and agenda. If he was a good enough candidate to actually beat Hillary than they really wouldn't have a choice, or else they would be handing the party an automatic loss because of the amount of votes they would lose in protest. Hillary wouldn't have the legitimacy needed to win in all likelyhood. The 1968 election is a good example of what happens to a party when they deny the party voters of the candidate they have chosen. It often isn't worth the risk.

The only situation where it would be is like one the Republicans are facing now. They will lose no matter what. They'd probably chose to hand it to someone else just to limit the damage done

BarrileteCosmico wrote:V even  if they were to change their minds  (and what you're arguing for is that they are useless so why keep them anyways?)  they affect the perception that Hillary has an insurmountable lead and that she has already won, so why go vote for Sanders at all? Why stay interested in the race?

Like you said in this type of primary they are really only useful as a weighted die to alter perception. But in terms of practical use of handing it to someone who gets less votes, outside of a disaster/crisis they aren't very useful.

They are as of now uncommitted votes. So even though they have pledged to vote for Hillary at the convention they don't have to. And wouldn't if she didn't get the nomation. This exact scenario played out in 08. The Clinton machine does have huge influence within the party, and had they been so easily swayed the democratic party would have picked her over Obama. The case for her would have been better in 08 than it even is now. The Clinton's balanced the budget, gave us a 200 billion surplus and are back to correct the mess, but they didn't have much of a choice and did switch to a young senator with few friends and little influence in Washington because he won the nomination

Please don't compare Obama to Sanders and that election to this one....  complete apples and oranges.  Obama actually showed better than Clinton in general election polls then AND was in a virtual tie in terms of the popular vote in the primaries AND MOST IMPORTANTLY carried victories in the states that carried significant impact in the electoral vote.  Other than Michigan (and due to special circumstances associated with the water issue right now), Sanders hasn't won a single state that would carry any importance in a general election.

You're going to see states like New York and New Jersey coming soon.  Sanders is going to get crushed in those and that will be the end of that.

Pedram wrote:Super delegates were designed to maintain status quo inside the Democratic party, to make sure the party don't sway too much to the left, and the only group of people who suffers the most from this system are young liberal/progressives who have no chances of electing their favorite president through the Democratic party, instead they're being consistently duped to vote for so-called liberals who won't actually push their agenda.

And what agenda is that? One built on idealism by a class of people too young to have ever paid taxes?

Its unelectable with the vast majority of this country. Sanders is unelectable, and he would give us 4-8 years of trump.

sportsczy wrote:Please don't compare Obama to Sanders and that election to this one....  complete apples and oranges.  Obama actually showed better than Clinton in general election polls then AND was in a virtual tie in terms of the popular vote in the primaries AND MOST IMPORTANTLY carried victories in the states that carried significant impact in the electoral vote.  Other than Michigan (and due to special circumstances associated with the water issue right now), Sanders hasn't won a single state that would carry any importance in a general election.

You're going to see states like New York and New Jersey coming soon.  Sanders is going to get crushed in those and that will be the end of that.

Well I'm not sure we are in disagreement here. I was speaking in hypotheticals, if Sanders had won, had gained momentum Obama had gotten in 08, we would have seen the scenarios play out similarly. Obama earned the votes, he won the nomination, so he deserved it. Sanders hasn't done anything to get any supers to support him. So thats why they aren't going his way. I just disagree with the idea that their vote would maintain had he fairly won the nomination and beaten Hillary.

It's a very strange election... i honestly don't like any of the candidates at all.  I'm literally looking to vote for the person who will do the least amount of harm as opposed to anything else.

Out of all of them, I think Kasich is the most reasonable...  but he has no chance.  Sanders, Trump and Cruz are all awful candidates to me although i do think Sanders is an honorable man...  not so much the other two.  I don't trust Clinton at all; but she may be my default choice. Everybody else are such wildcards.

A shame that the choices are so poor.

Betty La Fea wrote:
Uphill battle for Sanders you say? I mean, you make it seem like Bernie Sanders just recently joined the party after making a career running against them...oh wait, that is the case isn't it? Hillary has those super delegates because she has been a member of the democratic party for DECADES. She has raised money for them for DECADES. She has campaigned for their candidates for DECADES. You are not in reality if you don't think that stands for something, especially against a guy who has ran against and beat democrats.  The fact he had a single super delegate is proof of their usefulness in judgement.

You just outlined why it is undemocratic. So because she put her time in the party she deserves a head start? That right there is a select group of people directly controlling the election. You can like the system if you want, fair game, but no doubt it is undemocratic. Whatever time anyone has put in any party doesn't mean that they deserve the presidency. No one deserves the presidency by anything they have done in the past, they earn it by what they can do in the present.

VendettaRed07 wrote:
If Bernie were to win the primary, the super delegates would swing to support him because the back lash they would suffer from not giving him the nomination even though he got the most votes would be too damaging. Does anyone think that the Democratic party really wanted Obama to get the nomination over Hillary in 08? If they had their way, they would have given it to Hillary. But Obama won fair and square and the super delegates at the convention switched their votes.

That's the thing, by the time the super delegates switch their vote its too late. The perception of the candidates is heavily influenced by the super delegates aligning to either side from the get go.

In that case, Obama didn't win the election "fair and square" he won it at a disadvantage. Just like Sanders is trying now.

Betty La Fea wrote:
The thing about America is if you are unhappy with the way the organization is run, you are free to start your own. Would it be hard? Yes, but if the popularity is there then surely it can be done.

That's more than an optimistic view on this bipartisan system. You can romanticize american ideals, but in this case, the odds are hugely stacked against political diversity.

rincon wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:
Uphill battle for Sanders you say? I mean, you make it seem like Bernie Sanders just recently joined the party after making a career running against them...oh wait, that is the case isn't it? Hillary has those super delegates because she has been a member of the democratic party for DECADES. She has raised money for them for DECADES. She has campaigned for their candidates for DECADES. You are not in reality if you don't think that stands for something, especially against a guy who has ran against and beat democrats.  The fact he had a single super delegate is proof of their usefulness in judgement.

You just outlined why it is undemocratic. So because she put her time in the party she deserves a head start? That right there is a select group of people directly controlling the election. You can like the system if you want, fair game, but no doubt it is undemocratic. Whatever time anyone has put in any party doesn't mean that they deserve the presidency. No one deserves the presidency by anything they have done in the past, they earn it by what they can do in the present.

Not saying she deserves the presidency, but she has earned those super delegates.

Bernie Sanders could have earned them himself, but he chose to be an independent. He chose not to campaign for democrats, he chose to be on the outside. Fair play to him, but with that choice he decided to always be behind when trying to win the parties nomination.

You don't have to run as a democrat or a republican... you can run as an independent. But if you want the membership of one of those parties to support your candidacy, then you agree to follow their rules. Nothing undemocratic about it. They're non-profit private organizations that can choose to run their organization any way they wish as long as it's not illegal.

The actual presidential election is governed by the laws of the US regarding public elections.

Just a difference in opinion I guess.

To me it's quite blatant that it's undemocratic. For sports and betty it's not, and that alright I guess.

Time for my home state to prove its worth

#Wisconsin4Bernie

Was pleased to hear that my father, a fairly reliable GOP vote, is actually going for Bernie in the primary, out of a lack of interest in the GOP candidates and a similar distaste for Hillary. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'm curious how well Sanders does in comparison to Hillary with crossover votes like my dad.

It wouldn't necessarily surprise me to see that he has more appeal, even with his more "radical" views.

Sanders is absolute money in states like Wisconsin these days. He still got crushed with African American voters though. Nearly an 80-20 split. Lucky for him there are like 12 African Americans in Wisconsin. He will have to do much better in NY, or even Mayland to stand a chance. He better be making a killer line for that brooklyn debate next week.

My high school had like 8 African Americans in a school of over 1200 lmao

Yeah I mean I'm well aware Bernie isn't going to make a challenge at this point, it's just about pride in my state for me. Trump grossly miscalculated Wisconsin. Walker isn't really well approved of here in terms of the general electorate, but for the Republicans that are going to vote in primaries, he's quite popular. Disparaging Walker the way he has lead to a bad, bad loss. I think Cruz would have been favored anyway, but it didn't have to be that bad of a loss.

CBarca wrote:My high school had like 8 African Americans in a school of over 1200 lmao

Yeah I mean I'm well aware Bernie isn't going to make a challenge at this point, it's just about pride in my state for me. Trump grossly miscalculated Wisconsin. Walker isn't really well approved of here in terms of the general electorate, but for the Republicans that are going to vote in primaries, he's quite popular. Disparaging Walker the way he has lead to a bad, bad loss. I think Cruz would have been favored anyway, but it didn't have to be that bad of a loss.

There is still hope for Sanders if Hillary is indicted. Small hope, but hope.

Good to see your state didnt buy the trump garbage the way mine did too

Trump is only liked in the redneck parts of WI. Generally he's pretty hated here definitely.

And yeah I feel that might be the reason that Bernie is sticking around. I'm not sure if it's because he believes he has a chance or whether it's because he wants to stick around and get his message around more, or whether it's simply because of that small chance Hillary gets indicted.

Sanders just said Hillary isn't qualified to be president

Still think the entire batshittery of the Trump campaign is a ploy to mask how insane Cruz really is, he'll be voted in as the saviour of the Republican party, and turn out to be a right-wing religious nutjob, as bigotted as they come, will turn the White House into Westboro Baptist church IMHO.

Really missing John Huntsman atm

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders just said Hillary isn't qualified to be president

He should have attacked her way earlier. And he should have tried to win black voters. He's just too honest to do those things.