This will be controversial, but I'm not thrilled about this. For the record, I believe Bernie Sanders' role in failing to wholeheartedly support Clinton against Trump helped put us in the...
Exemplary
This will be controversial, but I'm not thrilled about this.
For the record, I believe Bernie Sanders' role in failing to wholeheartedly support Clinton against Trump helped put us in the situation we now face.
Bernie Sanders doesn't know beans about how to govern.
He's been about as effective a legislator as possible given his relative distance from the center of gravity in American politics. He's a fair, but not great, coalition builder.
But the U.S. Senate doesn't do a good job of preparing people for national executive power. The electoral constituencies for seats are too heavily defined by geography, and Senators aren't exposed to national concerns other than those of their voluntary committee memberships. Sanders has zero experience with foreign policy, military matters other than veterans' health, industrial policy... He has been the mayor of a small city, Burlington, VT, but that's not representative of challenges at a national scale either.
There are plenty of landmines in Sanders' personal history (though at least no exposed rape or harassment allegations), which would be far more exposed in a national election against Trump. He escaped intense scrutiny and ratf*cking in the 2016 election, mainly because he was so useful a foil against Hillary Clinton. [FYI, not an unwavering fan of hers, either - I contributed to Sanders in the primary in the hope that it would shift the party platform and give life to Clinton's bland, status quo policy messaging, but expected her to be competent enough to execute.]
Sanders' "democratic socialism" consists mainly of warmed-over New Deal policies, with a side helping of the national health care strategy which Clinton pioneered. Not a bad start, but wholly inadequate to deal with the challenges of 21st Century America.
Mainly, I'm hoping the next year's Democratic Party primary campaigning exposes a better candidate. There's a lot of talent and energy in the field right now. Of course, there's the usual risk that the primaries will turn into a circular firing squad and leave no candidate who can defeat Trump.
Not a very deep analysis on my part, but it's a heartfelt first pass.
It was an extremely close election. Literally every factor is "to blame" by this logic. Why not blame restrictive work schedules for service workers, which suppresses many times more votes than a...
There were enough Sanders turned Trump supporters in swing states that effected the election.
It was an extremely close election. Literally every factor is "to blame" by this logic. Why not blame restrictive work schedules for service workers, which suppresses many times more votes than a handful of Bernie fanboys?
There will always be some number of people who don't show up to vote or don't like the main candidate. Blaming these extremely small margins for the result rather than actual systemic factors becomes a lame attempt at scapegoating rather than an honest accounting of issues. It's a common thread that establishment figures pull off to avoid dealing with blame or blowback. They can never fail, they can only ever be failed.
Your first article says that the sort of defection you are referring to is normal in primary/general conversion - 12% of Republican primary voters voted for Clinton. I'm not going to even look at...
Your first article says that the sort of defection you are referring to is normal in primary/general conversion - 12% of Republican primary voters voted for Clinton.
I'm not going to even look at your other sources - it's obvious to me that you're just here to poke at old 2016 wounds.
I definitely agree with your analysis and would add the age concerns (Sanders is turning 78 this year). However, as I'm not really invested in this subject, could you elaborate on who you meant...
I definitely agree with your analysis and would add the age concerns (Sanders is turning 78 this year). However, as I'm not really invested in this subject, could you elaborate on who you meant when you wrote "There's a lot of talent and energy in the field right now"? I mean I like Biden, but I have the same age concerns for him (turning 77 this year) and wasn't very successful in his first 2 runs in 1988 and 2008. He was a long standing member of the Senate, but I think as a Vice President, he should be a better fit for president than most senators as you stated. Otherwise there is Elizabeth Warren and some FOTM names like Beto O'Rourke, who all lack either experience or charisma as I heard. As I said, I am not too deep in this subject, so I was wondering if I missed someone?
I'm less concerned with the age of the candidates as long as they're in general good health and cognitively intact. I realize that the risk of system failure increases with age, but most of the...
Exemplary
I'm less concerned with the age of the candidates as long as they're in general good health and cognitively intact. I realize that the risk of system failure increases with age, but most of the older candidates are withstanding the stress of their positions reasonably well. They likely have adequate reserve capacity for a few more good years.
Rather than the absolute ages of the candidates, what bothers me is the gerontocratic presumption - that they've earned position through mere survival in office, regardless of their politics and what they've actually learned or accomplished (e.g. Joe Biden).
So I'm still doing research, but here's a capsule summary that I'll elaborate on:
Joe Biden - I respect him greatly as a person, but he's been the epitome of mediocre as a legislator and campaigner. People complained about Hillary Clinton's political triangulation, but Biden has hardly ever been anything but middle-of-the-road, aiming exactly between the poles of the Republican and Democratic Parties even as the Overton Window moved rightwards.
Elizabeth Warren - one of the most intelligent people running, and a deep student of banking law. I've browsed through a couple of her draft bills, and she's no stranger to detail or thoughtful, farsighted strategy.
Warren got into public politics opposing the removal of personal bankruptcy protection which Joe Biden eventually voted for in 2005. Her political shrewdness in repackaging Bernie Sanders' New Deal 2.0 as saving capitalism from itself is noteworthy. And yet, I hate the idea of granting any "personhood" status to corporations, even for the purpose of regulating them. Others have pointed out that some of her ideas (corporate personhood, wealth tax) would require rewriting the Constitution. In many respects, she still thinks like an academic lawyer, and doesn't have enough knowledge of economic ground truth.
Unfortunately, Warren's pissed off some very rich people and is vulnerable to many of the same dirty tricks that worked against Hillary Clinton. Warren doesn't have broad policy experience, especially with respect to foreign policy - it's going to take a wizard to repair the damage DT has done.
Social Democrats/Progressives: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley
Experienced in politics, but mainstream Democratic Party, PAC-backed "pragmatists". May endorse some progressive/green policies, but no cohesive agenda: Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Joe Biden (as discussed above), Jay Inslee, Eric Holder, Terry McAuliffe, John Kerry, Michael Bennett
Intriguing outsiders (some distance from mainstream Democrats, not necessarily sound on policy or experienced at the national level): Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Steve Bullock
Stealth Republicans (old-school pro-business and/or plutocrats) - Michael Bloomberg, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Cuomo
Single-issue and/or loons: Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Seth Moulton
Obviously, a substantial proportion of these people have show-stoppers in their histories that are likely guarantees of primary defeat, e.g. Tulsi Gabbard's history of anti-gay pronouncements, Eric Holder's criminal justice record, etc.
Minor correction - some of the candidates listed haven't announced they're running yet, they've just announced the formation of exploratory committees. The Rolling Stone list was the most...
Minor correction - some of the candidates listed haven't announced they're running yet, they've just announced the formation of exploratory committees. The Rolling Stone list was the most up-to-date comprehensive resource I could find.
I'd qualified my assessment with "may endorse some progressive/green policies, but no cohesive agenda" and I'll stand by that in the cases you mention. Show me their clean politics policy agendas,...
I'd qualified my assessment with "may endorse some progressive/green policies, but no cohesive agenda" and I'll stand by that in the cases you mention. Show me their clean politics policy agendas, and I'll reassess.
I'm looking for someone who wants to champion public national election funding, a universal right to vote, and the dilution or abolition of the Electoral College. Tiny asks, I know. :-)
I'm looking for someone who wants to champion public national election funding, a universal right to vote, and the dilution or abolition of the Electoral College. Tiny asks, I know. :-)
Wondering the same. Warren is a sure loser (love her to death but you're not getting white males in the midwest to vote for her). Beto has zip for experience. He's not running but I look for...
Wondering the same. Warren is a sure loser (love her to death but you're not getting white males in the midwest to vote for her). Beto has zip for experience. He's not running but I look for Kennedy to do something in the next 10 years. He has youth and a recognizable name.
Keeping my eye on Sherrod Brown - I see him as someone who might shake things up.
I don't know about this. When I organized in the rural midwest, almost every person I talked to (bernie supporter or hillary) said that they'd love to have seen Warren instead of either of them.
I don't know about this.
When I organized in the rural midwest, almost every person I talked to (bernie supporter or hillary) said that they'd love to have seen Warren instead of either of them.
I sincerely hope you're right. Warren is the type of old school progressive that I think we're in dire need of (Bernie too, but she seems more grounded).
I sincerely hope you're right. Warren is the type of old school progressive that I think we're in dire need of (Bernie too, but she seems more grounded).
And why not? Why wouldn't a political party select and push their favored nominee? There is nothing wrong about that and there is NOTHING about the party system that says "we must have a primary...
And why not? Why wouldn't a political party select and push their favored nominee? There is nothing wrong about that and there is NOTHING about the party system that says "we must have a primary and choose the most popular person." They make their own rules so they can change them whenever they like.
I keep seeing comments like this where folks seem to be under the impression that the political parties are under some kind of law where they must do X or Y. They're private organizations - not public. But folks want to slap their preconceived notions of fairness on these institutions as if they had anything to do with setting up and running them.
The democratic and republican parties are effectively gatekeepers to our democracy. If you agree that democracy is the most effective form of government, demanding that the gatekeepers to...
There is nothing wrong about that
The democratic and republican parties are effectively gatekeepers to our democracy. If you agree that democracy is the most effective form of government, demanding that the gatekeepers to democracy be managed democratically is a no-brainer.
Then do it! Join a political party and get involved and change it. I'm not arguing it's a good thing, just that it's a thing, it's human, and understandable, and teeth gnashing and foot stomping...
If you agree that democracy is the most effective form of government, demanding that the gatekeepers to democracy be managed democratically is a no-brainer.
Then do it! Join a political party and get involved and change it.
I'm not arguing it's a good thing, just that it's a thing, it's human, and understandable, and teeth gnashing and foot stomping doesn't change that.
You did argue it was a good thing, or at least not a bad thing, though - you literally said there was nothing wrong about that. (I’d normally downvote and move on but this is one of those times I...
You did argue it was a good thing, or at least not a bad thing, though - you literally said there was nothing wrong about that.
(I’d normally downvote and move on but this is one of those times I needed to explain myself instead. No hard feelings but it feels like you walked it back and aren’t acknowledging what you said.)
A fair point! Don't worry, no hard feelings here at all. I enjoy a good discussion. What I'm trying to say is there isn't anything wrong or illegal or even unfair about a private organization...
A fair point! Don't worry, no hard feelings here at all. I enjoy a good discussion.
What I'm trying to say is there isn't anything wrong or illegal or even unfair about a private organization doing things the way they want. I'm not trying to walk anything back, just to make a narrow point that private organizations like political parties can and should make their own rules. That is a good thing.
What people seem to be upset about (other than their guy losing) is that the Democratic party (and Republican too) have said the rules are X but seemed to take strides to work around or change those rules when their base of power is threatened. I see that as expected, human, and in line with how things have worked historically.
So from that point of view, I don't see anything wrong as it's in line with the law, human nature, and how the parties have worked historically. Someone can say "that's not fair!" and the counterpoint is "who ever promised it was fair?" Because it's not and never has been.
That said, it's not the best system and if we want a better system then we must get involved. Without a massive revolution, the change you seek must come from within the parties. And I think you'll find that if you join one, get involved, and work your way up to the top, then you'll probably feel and do many of the same things that the parties currently do.
EDIT: Also just realized I was having a discussion with three different people lol
Honestly, I've thought it was really weird all of the main news media has been talking about Kamala Harris since 2016. She's been the first name brought up in almost every article I've read for a...
Honestly, I've thought it was really weird all of the main news media has been talking about Kamala Harris since 2016. She's been the first name brought up in almost every article I've read for a few years now. Why? She was literally JUST elected to the senate and had basically no national name recognition. Why would she be anyone's first thought for presidential candidates? I've had a sick feeling they were going to try to drive this person down our throats. Ugh.
In many ways she's possibly a strong candidate, 538 has an interesting take on what makes her a solid one: she might be able to cobble together the largest base of voters compared to many other...
In many ways she's possibly a strong candidate, 538 has an interesting take on what makes her a solid one: she might be able to cobble together the largest base of voters compared to many other democratic candidates (of course how would translate into practice is still very much up in the air)
It's good to remember that the news is kind of biased towards reporting what they know will get views, Harris might not explicitly be building an Identity-based strategy, but the news knows that selling that story works and they need those views.
she's not a "possibly" strong candidate so much as the literal, likely frontrunner when biden inevitably crashes and burns because his support is entirely predicated on name recognition and not...
In many ways she's possibly a strong candidate, 538 has an interesting take on what makes her a solid one: she might be able to cobble together the largest base of voters compared to many other democratic candidates (of course how would translate into practice is still very much up in the air)
she's not a "possibly" strong candidate so much as the literal, likely frontrunner when biden inevitably crashes and burns because his support is entirely predicated on name recognition and not actual policy. harris has regularly been placing second (or sometimes third) in the polling that's taken place since she jumped in and she has the support of people like hillary clinton and a large number of california's state and federal congresspeople. she's also a diverse, fairly young candidate and she has a probable structural advantage in the primary because of how early california is in the primary cycle in 2020.
I think this is kind of weird to state before there's even any actual platform up, especially considering Biden has been politically active before so it's a little far-fetched to state he won't...
he's not a "possibly" strong candidate so much as the literal, likely frontrunner when biden inevitably crashes and burns because his support is entirely predicated on name recognition and not actual policy.
I think this is kind of weird to state before there's even any actual platform up, especially considering Biden has been politically active before so it's a little far-fetched to state he won't have actual policy, or that he won't compared to Harris in any case.
it's not that weird if you're in tune with the daily going-ons of politics like i tend to be. biden is basically a paper tiger because his actual policy is terrible, his track record is even...
I think this is kind of weird to state before there's even any actual platform up, especially considering Biden has been politically active before so it's a little far-fetched to state he won't have actual policy, or that he won't compared to Harris in any case.
it's not that weird if you're in tune with the daily going-ons of politics like i tend to be. biden is basically a paper tiger because his actual policy is terrible, his track record is even worse, and when you actually put him up to be judged, he is very clearly out of lockstep with the modern democratic party. his entire path at this point pretty much consists of being able to make it to the convention and getting the nod in a brokered convention, because he's one of the furthest right candidates that the democrats could possibly run nowadays and genuinely appeals to approximately nobody. he's exceedingly likely to collapse the moment he gets pushed on what he stands for because i guarantee you, it's not what democratic voters want.
God I hope so. I've not heard of a candidate yet that I think has a shot against an energized Trump and Russian dark money. Biden is the only name I've heard yet (hasn't announced he'd run..yet)...
Mainly, I'm hoping the next year's Democratic Party primary campaigning exposes a better candidate.
God I hope so. I've not heard of a candidate yet that I think has a shot against an energized Trump and Russian dark money. Biden is the only name I've heard yet (hasn't announced he'd run..yet) that I think has a chance with white male working class voters. Beto could be good but has zip for experience. Booker or Harris might make good VPs. I could get behind Harris if she had a more defined campaign platform - she flubbed some gimmes in her announcement interviews that make me super nervous about her.
Correction: Sherrod Brown shouldn't be discounted. He's spending time in the places where he needs to do so right now and might be a surprise contender in Iowa.
I don't think it's going to be that clear-cut, you can't just say "I'm law and order" on repeat for your political slogan. She's going to have to answer concerns and criticisms of her past, as...
I don't think it's going to be that clear-cut, you can't just say "I'm law and order" on repeat for your political slogan. She's going to have to answer concerns and criticisms of her past, as well as current stances in order to keep a good record and keep the democratic tent united, and if her announcement is any indication she's does not have Obama or Biden's recovery.
Sanders DID endorse her and campaign for her as far as her team would let him. This is entirely sour grapes from Clinton fans claiming he didn't endorse her hard enough which is just the silliest...
Sanders DID endorse her and campaign for her as far as her team would let him. This is entirely sour grapes from Clinton fans claiming he didn't endorse her hard enough which is just the silliest damn complaint to have. Maybe Clinton should have done more to win over Sanders voters instead of deliberately sidelining him from the post-primary campaign trail and telling Sanders' voters (many of whom are new to being involved in politics) to sit down, shut up, and get in line. It's not at all shocking that she'd have trouble winning turnout if her entire campaign was intent on nursing grievances that Clinton was challenged at all.
They did the same thing in 2008 too. The hatred from the Clinton camp towards Obama was staggering.
You have to understand how the American presidential election system works in order to make an informed decision here. There are really only two decisions that you can make when it comes to...
Back then I viewed your election as plague vs cholera as they say.
You have to understand how the American presidential election system works in order to make an informed decision here. There are really only two decisions that you can make when it comes to voting. Help your favorite/"least disliked"/most palatable candidate, or hurt them. Not voting hurts them. Voting for anyone other than a republican/democrat hurts them.
The so called third options that people propose aren't real options. They do nothing and serve only to hurt whoever your favorite candidate out of R or D is. There's exactly zero chance of a third party ever being elected president in the country, so the smart move is to always vote, even if the choice is between someone you absolutely hate more than anything in the world, and someone you merely detest.
The "protest vote", the independent candidates, and the third parties are just an illusion, and taking those options are in actuality just casting a partial vote for the candidate you like the least.
No it isn't. First past the post voting being enshrined by the constitution got us into a 2 party system. It's a fundamental observation in political science that FPTP always results in only two...
No it isn't.
First past the post voting being enshrined by the constitution got us into a 2 party system. It's a fundamental observation in political science that FPTP always results in only two viable political parties.
If you want to get away from a 2 party system, vote for candidates among the major parties in the primaries that support moving away from it, not a third party. Voting for a third party will only ever result in helping your least favorite candidate. The chances of the majority of the country suddenly abandoning rational voting behaviors and instead simply voting for their most preferred candidate are ridiculously small. The chances that the majority of the country doing that and also having your chosen candidate as their preferred candidate is virtually nothing. That's why voting for third parties is irrational.
I recently saw a video on youtube that actually explains why two major parties always arise in FPTP systems here. Definitely worth a watch to understand the game theory behind how American elections work.
I don't think the Democrats support him as much as they did back in 2015-2016. Plus, he's incredibly old by now. Even if elected, his presidency would start near age 80. His health would be 'the...
I don't think the Democrats support him as much as they did back in 2015-2016.
Plus, he's incredibly old by now. Even if elected, his presidency would start near age 80.
His health would be 'the elephant in the room' for his whole term.
I really don't think Sanders caused people not to vote for Clinton. Sanders supporters voted for her more than her supporters did for Obama in 2008. Also, of all the candidates currently in the...
I really don't think Sanders caused people not to vote for Clinton. Sanders supporters voted for her more than her supporters did for Obama in 2008.
Also, of all the candidates currently in the ring, I don't think any have shown (so far) the same ability as Sanders to generate excitement. He had enormous crowds in comparison to Clinton's. I thought at the time, she won partially from name recognition, so if he had had a couple more months, he might have won the primary. I kinda like Warren, but she isn't as charismatic as Bernie and that whole Pocahontas thing is a HUGE anchor around her neck in my opinion.
Anyway, I'll be voting for Sanders partially because he seems to be the most sincere politician in America (who also mostly aligns with my politics). He doesn't change his beliefs at the drop of a hat and he has consistently promoted policies that he believed would help people. I'm really interested to see what happens now that he's starting as a front runner.
I personally did not vote for Clinton due to how badly the democratic party treated Bernie and how they just handed the nomination to her. I know I am not the only one; it was extremely...
I personally did not vote for Clinton due to how badly the democratic party treated Bernie and how they just handed the nomination to her. I know I am not the only one; it was extremely frustrating watching that happen because I knew that Clinton would lose to Trump immediately. (I was so disgusted I just chose not to vote at all)
This always irritates me whenever I hear it. It's the democratic party and Bernie was a self-avowed Independent who was using the Democratic party because it's was more effective than running as...
how badly the democratic party treated Bernie and how they just handed the nomination to her
This always irritates me whenever I hear it.
It's the democratic party and Bernie was a self-avowed Independent who was using the Democratic party because it's was more effective than running as an independent. This whole idea that the party's must be "fair" or "balanced" in how they treat candidates is a recent fiction and has never been born out in reality. You have a hostile person coming in to take over a group...who says he's not about what the group is about...who states openly that he's subverting it....and you're disgusted that the party didn't welcome him in with open arms. I just don't get it.
EDIT: There are several comments that are similar so I'm just going to reply here. For those of you saying "that's undemocratic!" I'd point you to the long history of the political parties in the U.S. and remind you that the very idea of having political parties was viewed as undemocratic by none other than George Washington himself who famously said
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I'm not defending the system. I'm simply pointing out it exists and all of the shouts of "it's not fair!" are not going to actually change anything.
The independents (now 44% of the electorate) in the US have one of three choices - Republican or Democrat or non-participation. This attitude that they should either be vilified as spoilers or not...
Exemplary
The independents (now 44% of the electorate) in the US have one of three choices - Republican or Democrat or non-participation. This attitude that they should either be vilified as spoilers or not participate is farcical. This is a Democracy and anyone who thinks that a small group of elite gate keepers should determine who the leader is is nothing but undemocratic.
I did not argue either of these things. You're providing a counterpoint to a strawman. Just for a second, pretend you spent your entire life working for and furthering something, only for someone...
This attitude that they should either be vilified as spoilers or not participate is farcical
I did not argue either of these things. You're providing a counterpoint to a strawman.
anyone who thinks that a small group of elite gate keepers should determine who the leader is is nothing
Just for a second, pretend you spent your entire life working for and furthering something, only for someone with no stake in the game, who hadn't done any of that work, came in to take it from you, said at much to everyone around, and then somehow you're the bad guy for sticking by the rules you helped create. That's what happened ... if you decide to look at it from another POV.
My point is that it is only human and natural for them to protect themselves. No party owes it to anyone to nominate a particular person. That's never been the process. You can say "oh well it should be" and I'd agree with you. But you're beating a dog for not being a cat here.
It's not about you. If you build a democratic system and then people come in and vote with different values then you, that's your own fault for participating in a democratic system. Just because...
Just for a second, pretend you spent your entire life working for and furthering something
It's not about you. If you build a democratic system and then people come in and vote with different values then you, that's your own fault for participating in a democratic system. Just because you don't like it does not justify subverting democratic values (which the DNC does at least pretend to have by facilitating the nominee process).
Please stop whitewashing what happened. The DNC was not "abiding by rules they created", as if they were some neutral actor merely "upholding the rules". They were actively hostile to Sanders in particular, and the other non-Clinton candidates. Likewise, they showed bias towards Clinton.
No party owes it to nominate anyone, but they don't owe it to anyone to be actively biased either, nor do they owe it to anyone to subvert a democracy by pretending to elect people democratically. What you're doing is not "seeing both sides"—right now you are actively apologizing for completely unethical behavior from the DNC. You're defending undemocratic, underhanded behavior that led to Trump being elected, which would not have happened if Sanders had received the nomination as he should have. People are allowed to complain, and after 2016 people did start politically organizing moreso. This logic is akin to victim blaming.
This is what put me off. If the DNC didn't want to deal with Bernie, then the DNC should have flatly barred him from running as a Democrat (he is an Independent). That was well within their rights...
They were actively hostile to Sanders in particular, and the other non-Clinton candidates. Likewise, they showed bias towards Clinton.
This is what put me off. If the DNC didn't want to deal with Bernie, then the DNC should have flatly barred him from running as a Democrat (he is an Independent). That was well within their rights and I think it would have sidestepped the need for all the dirty dealing that followed. They probably figured Bernie was a joke and wouldn't get any real traction - their mistake.
This is a very interesting idea of democracy, where the elite gatekeepers get to decide who's going to be the next President and the rest of us vote to rubber-stamp their choice.
This is a very interesting idea of democracy, where the elite gatekeepers get to decide who's going to be the next President and the rest of us vote to rubber-stamp their choice.
Well I'd say it's less an idea and more our reality...but certainly that's just my perception. But it doesn't always work out for the party elite's though - Trump is definitely proof of that.
Well I'd say it's less an idea and more our reality...but certainly that's just my perception. But it doesn't always work out for the party elite's though - Trump is definitely proof of that.
And the voters are likewise free to say if the Democratic party wants to be undemocratic they'll stay home. Of course you all have to live with the outcome, I'm not sure why you're so keen to...
And the voters are likewise free to say if the Democratic party wants to be undemocratic they'll stay home.
Of course you all have to live with the outcome, I'm not sure why you're so keen to apportion blame to the voters and not the DNC though.
Yes of course. I'm not trying to apportion blame to the voters. Just to make a narrow point about the parties - so many people come with an expectation that's not founded in reality.
Yes of course. I'm not trying to apportion blame to the voters. Just to make a narrow point about the parties - so many people come with an expectation that's not founded in reality.
The democratic party should ostensibly operate according to democratic principles. Party leaders choosing winners and losers is literally the exact opposite of democracy.
This whole idea that the party's must be "fair" or "balanced" in how they treat candidates is a recent fiction and has never been born out in reality.
The democratic party should ostensibly operate according to democratic principles. Party leaders choosing winners and losers is literally the exact opposite of democracy.
I agree but I believe this answer is slightly disingenuous. Sanders or not, the democratic party decided from day 1 to give it to Clinton. It's disingenuous to throw one's hands up and go "oh, but...
Exemplary
I agree but I believe this answer is slightly disingenuous. Sanders or not, the democratic party decided from day 1 to give it to Clinton. It's disingenuous to throw one's hands up and go "oh, but this is how it always is, so why are you complaining..?". If a party decides they want one candidate to be nominated, then there shouldn't even be debates or primaries, which waste people's time (such as everyone who had to tabulate the votes or spent time deciding on which candidate they support).
A party SHOULD have democratic, fair elections. We SHOULD be allowed to complain when they subvert that, "precedent" notwithstanding. Even if Bernie isn't a "democrat", he ran in the democratic party's race as a candidate. The people voting should be the ones deciding if he deserves the vote, not a handful people at the top of the party who have zero connection with what voters want.
Well I'd say that the parties are more "disingenuous" than my answer was :) However, I'd counter that the idea that the party has no idea who is going to lead them and wants the masses to decide...
Well I'd say that the parties are more "disingenuous" than my answer was :)
However, I'd counter that the idea that the party has no idea who is going to lead them and wants the masses to decide for them is fanciful.
The primaries are less about choosing a candidate and more about making sure the elite's chosen candidate can actually perform out in the wild with the public. Remember Jeb Bush? please clap He was the expected front runner from the GOP in 2016 but couldn't perform.
A party SHOULD have democratic, fair elections. We SHOULD be allowed to complain when they subvert that, "precedent" notwithstanding. Even if Bernie isn't a "democrat", he ran in the democratic party's race as a candidate. The people voting should be the ones deciding if he deserves the vote, not a handful people at the top of the party who have zero connection with what voters want.
Keyword is should. I admire and agree with the idealism. However, that's not what is happening, and historically is not what has happened. The stomping of feet and gnashing of digital teeth won't change that. That change must come from within the party.
What else is someone like Bernie supposed to do? I'm sure he would love to run in the general election as an independent but it would cause the republican candidate to win. If the Democratic party...
What else is someone like Bernie supposed to do? I'm sure he would love to run in the general election as an independent but it would cause the republican candidate to win. If the Democratic party wants to not let people like Bernie participate, then they should support a new election system like ranked-choice voting.
Exactly what he did. I'm not suggesting he did anything wrong. I'm just tired of people acting like the Democratic establishment was somehow the bad guys or were "unfair" to someone crashing their...
What else is someone like Bernie supposed to do?
Exactly what he did. I'm not suggesting he did anything wrong. I'm just tired of people acting like the Democratic establishment was somehow the bad guys or were "unfair" to someone crashing their party.
If the Democratic party wants to not let people like Bernie participate, then they should support a new election system like ranked-choice voting.
My gripe is that people see the world as they want it to be, rather than as it is, and people want to demand others change while altering nothing about themselves.
I think he doesn't have a shot in hell. And to be clear, to have a shot, you have to run as a Democrat or Republican. I'm not defending it; that's just the reality we live in.
I think he doesn't have a shot in hell. And to be clear, to have a shot, you have to run as a Democrat or Republican. I'm not defending it; that's just the reality we live in.
Do you really think so? I feel like most everyone has forgotten he's even running. And he's running to the right of most Democrats if I recall correctly, so wouldn't he be pulling more from the...
Do you really think so? I feel like most everyone has forgotten he's even running. And he's running to the right of most Democrats if I recall correctly, so wouldn't he be pulling more from the right than the left? Or are least moderates... Stein was so damaging because she pulled left of Democrats. Stein supporters were most likely not going to go for Trump (although I know at least one SMH).
I don't think I buy the conventional wisdom that a candidate like Schultz is a spoiler. It presupposes that there are people aware enough of national politics to know who he is and want to vote...
I don't think I buy the conventional wisdom that a candidate like Schultz is a spoiler. It presupposes that there are people aware enough of national politics to know who he is and want to vote for him, but not aware of the meme that he's a "spoiler", particularly if they live in a battleground state.
While I agree with the popular sentiment that it is extremely unlikely he'll get a single electoral vote, that's not the only reason to vote for him (and a vote for him does not mean a vote for him would otherwise have gone to whomever the Democrat frontrunner ends up being.) In the end, lots of people don't particularly care for either major party or the narrative of being forced to pick the lesser evil from two duopolists; a vote for a high-profile third party is the most visible way of expressing that view and inching closer to some sort of reform that breaks up the hold the two major parties have on American politics.
Me too, for the exact same reason (although I voted third party). I probably would have voted for her if I didn't live in a state virtually guaranteed to carry her.
Me too, for the exact same reason (although I voted third party).
I probably would have voted for her if I didn't live in a state virtually guaranteed to carry her.
Almost the same situation for me. I voted Green (to try to get a third party to 5%) because I live in a deep red state who would never vote for Clinton in a million years. I'd have threw up a bit...
Almost the same situation for me. I voted Green (to try to get a third party to 5%) because I live in a deep red state who would never vote for Clinton in a million years. I'd have threw up a bit in my mouth and voted for her if I lived in a swing state and I despise Hillary Clinton.
Please see my comment about how Jill Stein is a shill for Russia... Here's more info for you: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jr-jill-stein-putin-russia-senate-639422
Please see my comment about how Jill Stein is a shill for Russia...
Dude, I don't care about that. Jill Stein is never going to get elected president. My goal was entirely trying to gain a third party (any third party) additional standing because I think it will...
Dude, I don't care about that. Jill Stein is never going to get elected president. My goal was entirely trying to gain a third party (any third party) additional standing because I think it will help us eventually get to a better election system like ranked-choice voting.
Okay, I'll entertain that possibility. Doesn't change the fact that I live in a deep red state and my vote doesn't particularly matter. It's not like I encouraged people in Michigan to vote for her.
Okay, I'll entertain that possibility. Doesn't change the fact that I live in a deep red state and my vote doesn't particularly matter. It's not like I encouraged people in Michigan to vote for her.
The comments aren't meant to be directed at you personally or to make anyone feel guilty for their vote. It's just a heads up that this person is shady and hopefully everyone is paying a bit...
The comments aren't meant to be directed at you personally or to make anyone feel guilty for their vote. It's just a heads up that this person is shady and hopefully everyone is paying a bit closer attention this time around.
I'm right there with you. I remember seeing this stuff on Stein and the Russians after the election, and it makes me feel weird that I voted for her, but it really doesn't matter in Louisiana. I...
I'm right there with you. I remember seeing this stuff on Stein and the Russians after the election, and it makes me feel weird that I voted for her, but it really doesn't matter in Louisiana. I could've voted for anyone, literally anyone, and it wouldn't have made a difference. And I think that's the biggest problem with the electoral system in this country, that my vote has never actually mattered because I've never lived in a swing state.
Thanks, that's fair analysis and I'm more suspicious of her now. I've just grown wary of "Russia!" accusations since we've reached a point where it's being thrown around the same way the alt-right...
Thanks, that's fair analysis and I'm more suspicious of her now.
I've just grown wary of "Russia!" accusations since we've reached a point where it's being thrown around the same way the alt-right accuses things of being the fault the of the "deep state". Someone on reddit said I was a Russian bot for pointing out that Clinton was in part responsible for destabilizing the government of Honduras which precipitated into the "caravan" last autumn.
That flies in the face of what I've been reading... Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320
I really don't think Sanders caused people not to vote for Clinton. Sanders supporters voted for her more than her supporters did for Obama in 2008.
That flies in the face of what I've been reading...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on I have another article for you. An...
I have another article for you. An estimated 6-12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump. An estimated 24% of Clinton voters voted for Obama. So, a certain percentage of primary loser votes switch sides every time. Bernie's percentage was LESS than the last time. Seems to me Clinton just didn't turn out enough people.
I'm not letting Clinton off the hook. I'm just pointing out that what you stated is not accurate, or at least not as I read it. Any third-party candidate draws votes from one party of the other....
I'm not letting Clinton off the hook.
I really don't think Sanders caused people not to vote for Clinton
I'm just pointing out that what you stated is not accurate, or at least not as I read it. Any third-party candidate draws votes from one party of the other. Just because it was less than last time doesn't mean it wasn't damaging.
Okay, I might should have used more precise wording. I don't think Sanders supporters didn't vote for Clinton at any higher rate than what is normal for a primary loser. In fact, it was lower than...
Okay, I might should have used more precise wording. I don't think Sanders supporters didn't vote for Clinton at any higher rate than what is normal for a primary loser. In fact, it was lower than last time. So I don't think it is fair to attack Sanders or his supporters about this.
Fair. Sanders was no more a spoiler to Clinton than Clinton was to Obama - got it, that makes sense. There are a ton of reasons why Clinton lost - the biggest being Clinton.
Fair. Sanders was no more a spoiler to Clinton than Clinton was to Obama - got it, that makes sense. There are a ton of reasons why Clinton lost - the biggest being Clinton.
Don't forget to pass some of that blame out to Jill Stein who was a Russian stooge who focused the Green party's efforts on swing states where they had no chance, the only motivation could have...
Don't forget to pass some of that blame out to Jill Stein who was a Russian stooge who focused the Green party's efforts on swing states where they had no chance, the only motivation could have been to sabotage Clinton.
The most upsetting thing about Jill Stein in 2016 to add context to your comment is that Donald Trump won by about 80k votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - Jill Stein took 130k...
The most upsetting thing about Jill Stein in 2016 to add context to your comment is that Donald Trump won by about 80k votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - Jill Stein took 130k votes from those three states, including totals larger than the vote difference between Clinton and Trump in Michigan and Wisconsin. The electoral college is idiocy.
And why was she campaigning so hard in those states? If the Green party really wants to get to 5% then wouldn't they want to target blue states? Any why is she on RT all the time?
And why was she campaigning so hard in those states? If the Green party really wants to get to 5% then wouldn't they want to target blue states? Any why is she on RT all the time?
This comment really stuck in my head so I did some research. Her strategy of running mostly in swing states doesn't make sense for the goal of getting to 5%. Why run in rust-belt purple and red...
This comment really stuck in my head so I did some research.
Her strategy of running mostly in swing states doesn't make sense for the goal of getting to 5%. Why run in rust-belt purple and red states at all? Why wouldn't you spend your money where the most progressives are like in California and Colorado.
She got ~50K votes in Michigan vs ~250K in California. Why would you spend your time in MI if you were trying to get to 5%? Wouldn't you target states that are friendly to you?
In what may just be a coincidence (but raises my eyebrows), Trump won most of those states by about the same margin that Stein received.
This was the announcement email if anyone is interested: Brothers and Sisters-- I am writing to let you know I have decided to run for president of the United States. I am asking you today to join...
Exemplary
This was the announcement email if anyone is interested:
Brothers and Sisters--
I am writing to let you know I have decided to run for president of the United States. I am asking you today to join me as part of an unprecedented and historic grassroots campaign that will begin with at least a million people from across the country.
Please join our campaign for president on day one and commit to doing what it takes to win this election.
Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election.
Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.
Our campaign is about taking on the powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life. I'm talking about Wall Street, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military-industrial complex, the private-prison industry and the large multi-national corporations that exert such an enormous influence over our lives.
Our campaign is about redoubling our efforts to end racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry and all forms of discrimination.
Our campaign is about creating a vibrant democracy with the highest voter turnout of any major country while we end voter suppression, Citizens United and outrageous levels of gerrymandering.
Our campaign is about creating a government and economy that works for the many, not just the few. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We should not have grotesque levels of wealth inequality in which three billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the country.
We should not have 30 million Americans without any health insurance, even more who are under-insured and a nation in which life expectancy is actually in decline.
We should not have an economy in which tens of millions of workers earn starvation wages and half of older workers have no savings as they face retirement.
We should not have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth and a dysfunctional childcare system which is unfair to both working parents and their children.
We should not have a regressive tax system in which large, profitable corporations like Amazon pay nothing in federal income taxes.
Make no mistake about it. The powerful special interests in this country have unbelievable power and they want to maintain the status quo. They have unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns and lobbying and have huge influence over the media and political parties.
The only way we will win this election and create a government and economy that works for all is with a grassroots movement – the likes of which has never been seen in American history.
They may have the money and power. We have the people. That is why we need one million Americans who will commit themselves to this campaign.
Stand with me as we fight to win the Democratic nomination and the general election. Add your name to join this campaign and say you are willing to do the hard work necessary to transform our country.
You know as well as I do that we are living in a pivotal and dangerous moment in American history. We are running against a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction.
I’m running for president because, now more than ever, we need leadership that brings us together – not divides us up. Women and men, black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, native born and immigrant. Now is the time for us to stand together.
I’m running for president because we need leadership that will fight for working families and the shrinking middle class, not just the 1 percent. We need a president who understands that we can create millions of good-paying jobs, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and construct the affordable housing we desperately need.
I'm running for president because we need trade policies that reflect the interests of workers and not multi-national corporations. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, provide pay equity for women and guarantee all workers paid family and medical leave.
I'm running for president because we need to understand that artificial intelligence and robotics must benefit the needs of workers, not just corporate America and those who own that technology.
I'm running for president because a great nation is judged not by how many billionaires and nuclear weapons it has, but by how it treats the most vulnerable – the elderly, the children, our veterans, the sick and the poor.
I’m running for president because we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics. We need a president who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
I’m running for president because the time is long overdue for the United States to join every other major country on Earth and guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all program.
I’m running for president because we need to take on the outrageous level of greed of the pharmaceutical industry and lower prescription drug prices in this country.
I'm running for president because we need to have the best educated workforce in the world. It is totally counter-productive for our future that millions of Americans are carrying outrageous levels of student debt, while many others cannot afford the high cost of higher education. That is why we need to make public colleges and universities tuition free and lower student debt.
I’m running for president because we must defend a woman’s right to control her own body against massive political attacks taking place at the local state and federal level.
I'm running for president because we need real criminal justice reform. We need to invest in jobs and education for our kids, not more jails and incarceration. We need to end the destructive "war on drugs," eliminate private prisons and cash bail and bring about major police department reform.
I'm running for president because we need to end the demonization of undocumented immigrants in this country and move to comprehensive immigration reform. We need to provide immediate legal status for the young people eligible for the DACA program and develop a humane policy for those at the border who seek asylum.
I'm running for president because we must end the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We need to take on the NRA, expand background checks, end the gun show loophole and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons.
I'm running for president because we need a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and world peace. The United States must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism and global wealth inequality.
That is why we need at least a million people to join our campaign and help lead the movement that can accomplish these goals. Add your name to say we’re in this together.
Needless to say, there is a lot of frightening and bad news in this world. Now, let me give you some very good news.
Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were "radical," and "extreme." We were told that Medicare for All, a $15 an hour minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, aggressively combating climate change, demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, were all of concepts that the American people would never accept.
Well, three years have come and gone. And, as result of millions of Americans standing up and fighting back, all of these policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans.
Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.
So here is my question for you:
Will you stand with me as part of a million person grassroots movement which can not only win the Democratic primary, not only win the general election but most importantly help transform this country so that, finally, we have a government that works for all of us and not just the few? Add your name to say you will.
Together we can create a nation that leads the world in the struggle for peace and for economic, racial, social and environmental justice.
And together we can defeat Donald Trump and repair the damage he has done to our country.
Brothers and sisters, if we stand together, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.
I'm surprised at how negative a lot of people's reactions to this are. An announcement isn't necessarily the place to get into policy, and I haven't really started doing research into all of the...
I'm surprised at how negative a lot of people's reactions to this are. An announcement isn't necessarily the place to get into policy, and I haven't really started doing research into all of the candidates joining the race this cycle. But I think at least these 2 things are true:
In a primary election, every candidate who is running in earnest with good intentions is a benefit to the party and the electorate. Diverse opinions between people who all generally want the same thing but have different plans on how to do it is a good thing.
Bernie Sanders' run for president in 2016 had a lasting effect on the democratic party. AOC won an "upset" election against a career democrat. Bernie's "Our Revolution" organization bankrolled a bunch of progressive candidates in the 2018 midterm. He lost his personal campaign, but continued to fight to get his own agenda into Washington.
Those 2 statements are already opinions I guess, but I think pretty defensible. On to a little more commentary that's off the cuff. I like Bernie Sanders, and I think point 2 is a good thing. I can respect a differing view that Bernie's agenda is bad, and it's bad that he's advancing it.
When you look at someone like Elizabeth Warren, I think she's a perfectly good candidate. Her policies would probably be comparable to Bernie's. She's younger, maybe she could get more support from a female base who wants to elect a woman. I am ready to hear out all of the dem candidates and I am specifically looking forward to see how a front-runner like Warren will brand her campaign. But my initial thoughts a priori are that she is comparable to Hillary, maybe a little more left, and a little more earnest. I don't see how she's going to appeal to Michigan or Wisconsin. In 2016 when they were doing polling about potential matchups, I remember Bernie polling better among republicans and independents than Hillary did. Bernie appealed to working class Americans. Maybe 4 years later, with the renown of his political fame seeping into the culture, he won't appeal to them anymore. Maybe he will have lost a step and not have the energy to appeal to them anymore. But in 2016 he was this beacon, to working class people, representing a guy that's worked a day in his life, isn't a millionaire, or if he is, barely, and was a straight shooter. I'm not saying all republicans were going to vote for him. But many republicans respected him.
Obviously I was a Bernie voter in 2016, and I will probably vote for him again, although like I said, I think there's a very healthy primary lineup and I'm excited to give others a shot. At the end of the day, I think that he has had an enormous impact on American politics. Greater than Hillary Clinton had, greater than any of his primary opponents have had so far. His ability to rally an unprecedented number of donations and volunteers to match one of the most pre-ordained and traditionally well-funded campaigns in 2016, and roll that machine into other campaigns in 2018 give me confidence in Bernie-as-inspirer, Bernie-as-executive, and Bernie-as-delegator. I think for any democrat, no matter where you fall on the spectrum, his entering the race only brings good discussion and a lively base of voters. The overall negativity in these comments about being too old and splitting the party and whatever rubs me the wrong way. This is a primary. If he's too old, let that play out on the campaign trail. You can't split the vote in a primary. And as always, it's the eventual candidate's job to win over voters themselves. Bernie voters voted for Hillary, even though he ran against her. And he would be perfectly capable of not running, then sandbagging the eventual candidate to his army of supporters anyways. His entering the race, on it's own, has no impact on what his supporters will do in Nov 2020.
I respect Warren for roughly the same reasons, but I think she's a disastrous candidate for this particular election. Aside from the general appeal you mention, my feeling is that she just hasn't...
When you look at someone like Elizabeth Warren, I think she's a perfectly good candidate. Her policies would probably be comparable to Bernie's. She's younger, maybe she could get more support from a female base who wants to elect a woman. I am ready to hear out all of the dem candidates and I am specifically looking forward to see how a front-runner like Warren will brand her campaign. But my initial thoughts a priori are that she is comparable to Hillary, maybe a little more left, and a little more earnest. I don't see how she's going to appeal to Michigan or Wisconsin.
I respect Warren for roughly the same reasons, but I think she's a disastrous candidate for this particular election. Aside from the general appeal you mention, my feeling is that she just hasn't demonstrated any command over the type of messaging that's effective at this point in time. That's no slight against her -- it's almost less respectable to be a forceful politician in 2018 -- but I just think her "public character" leaves space that'd be all too easy for Trump and his cronies to fill with rot. That she's an intelligent and experienced legislator is of less importance.
I'm not sure Bernie or Biden can punch back at the caliber necessary either, but they've got their "crusty old lefty asshole" (which I mean as a positive) and "working class hero" personas to fall back on when they can't. A lot of people can't name a single thing about Warren besides the evident fact that she had a judgment failure when filling out a demographic form.
She seems like she'd be a better president than a lot of the other options, but a worse candidate.
The racism in the U.S. is only trumped by our sexism (see what I did there?). I'd love for Warren to win, but she's going to lose about every male voter who ever felt "talked down to" by a female...
When you look at someone like Elizabeth Warren, I think she's a perfectly good candidate.
The racism in the U.S. is only trumped by our sexism (see what I did there?). I'd love for Warren to win, but she's going to lose about every male voter who ever felt "talked down to" by a female teacher.
I'm voting for Bernie simply because this is a primary, and you can vote for your preferred candidate. I often hear people saying that a candidate can't win, but I don't understand what that is...
I'm voting for Bernie simply because this is a primary, and you can vote for your preferred candidate. I often hear people saying that a candidate can't win, but I don't understand what that is important in a primary. You aren't betting on the winner, you are casting a vote in support of someone who most lines up with your ideals.
If he doesn't win, fantastic, I'll go with whoever the Dem ends up being, but in the meantime, I'll be supporting him.
This is a situation where I would love to see some pilots of ranked choice or instant-runoff voting. With a dozen candidates, there will be cases where the difference in my preferences is...
This is a situation where I would love to see some pilots of ranked choice or instant-runoff voting. With a dozen candidates, there will be cases where the difference in my preferences is marginal. Of course I'd like to see a preferred candidate win, but in the current system, voters are, as you indicate, betting on nebulous electability factors. And because that's part of the candidates' strategic calculations, you get candidates who run much blander, more timid campaigns than their actual politics and platforms.
Be careful plugging instant runoff. I've seen compelling arguments that it'll still result in first-past-the-post situations. The 'right' way to do this if you really care about deriving the...
Be careful plugging instant runoff. I've seen compelling arguments that it'll still result in first-past-the-post situations. The 'right' way to do this if you really care about deriving the people's will from the ranked list is to use the condorcet method. Scroll down to the example about Tennessee's capital and it'll show you the difference, and the advantage of using Condorcet over other systems.
Best part is you're still just using a ranked list as the ballot, it's the same in the voting booth. It's how you count the votes that matters. Instant runoff is exploitable. Also worth noting that using this method makes gerrymandering into an impossible math problem - there's no way in hell to figure out where to draw the district lines.
Understood - both terms have been used to describe a bucket of different algorithms for counting and weighting. I agree Condorcet is probably the best method, but it's going to take work to...
Understood - both terms have been used to describe a bucket of different algorithms for counting and weighting. I agree Condorcet is probably the best method, but it's going to take work to explain how any of this works to the voting masses, establishing trust/security, and proving that it's legal and constitutional...
The two-party system is a byproduct of the Senatorial extra governing layer. I'm not against having a little extra hysteresis in the system to keep transitory, uninformed popular sentiment from...
The two-party system is a byproduct of the Senatorial extra governing layer. I'm not against having a little extra hysteresis in the system to keep transitory, uninformed popular sentiment from propelling mistakes in democratic governance, but the U.S. Senate is a really archaic way to do that.
This is really bad. I voted for Bernie back then, but now all he's going to do is cause further infighting and help Trump (again...). Bernie got crushed last time and is now way too old at 78. He...
This is really bad. I voted for Bernie back then, but now all he's going to do is cause further infighting and help Trump (again...). Bernie got crushed last time and is now way too old at 78. He should be rallying behind someone else like Tulsi Gabbard, if she chooses to run anyone else.
You crossed out your opinion because someone bullied you on the internet by bombarding you with propaganda? Calling Gabbard an Islamophobe is about as honest/factual and constructive as calling...
You crossed out your opinion because someone bullied you on the internet by bombarding you with propaganda? Calling Gabbard an Islamophobe is about as honest/factual and constructive as calling Ilhan Omar an antisemite. It's a smear designed to shut down conversation.
No, I amended it because I don't know enough to refute it or not, and therefore I don't know enough about Tulsi to say she should be supported. Also, replying to a comment is not "bullying". Please.
No, I amended it because I don't know enough to refute it or not, and therefore I don't know enough about Tulsi to say she should be supported.
Also, replying to a comment is not "bullying". Please.
I really like Tulsi, but I really don't think she has a chance in hell. Bernie was able to get enough name recognition last time to do well because he was the only other option to Clinton. This...
I really like Tulsi, but I really don't think she has a chance in hell. Bernie was able to get enough name recognition last time to do well because he was the only other option to Clinton. This time, there is already Sanders and Warren and then everyone else who is pretending to have the same politics as Bernie. The field is sadly too crowded for Tulsi to pull out a win.
It's better than 78yo Sanders running again. If not Tulsi, then Sanders should be backing someone up and not polluting the race when he doesn't have any chance of winning. This is really...
It's better than 78yo Sanders running again. If not Tulsi, then Sanders should be backing someone up and not polluting the race when he doesn't have any chance of winning. This is really frustrating news, honestly, to hear that he's actually running again.
No he doesn't. It's going to end exactly the same as last time. He might get momentum, but he won't win, especially because he's 78 now, and then he's gonna give support to some candidate that is...
No he doesn't. It's going to end exactly the same as last time. He might get momentum, but he won't win, especially because he's 78 now, and then he's gonna give support to some candidate that is totally opposite from him. Sanders should be dedicating his efforts to help a candidate with a better chance.
I guess we'll see. I don't really think you can know the future, dude. He's not gonna drop out because some people say stuff like this, so WHY say it? It's just going to piss his supporters off...
I guess we'll see. I don't really think you can know the future, dude. He's not gonna drop out because some people say stuff like this, so WHY say it? It's just going to piss his supporters off and cause the very division that you seem so worried about.
I'm not saying I know the future (strawman). I'm saying it's INCREDIBLY unlikely that he will win, given what happened last time and his increased age. If enough people say something then it's...
I'm not saying I know the future (strawman). I'm saying it's INCREDIBLY unlikely that he will win, given what happened last time and his increased age. If enough people say something then it's possible he might get the message and drop out early. The only one causing division here is Sanders running once again. I am highly sure it's going to play out exactly as I laid out above.
I wouldn't say she supports either of those people. Just meeting with Asad doesn't mean she supports him. Meeting with Trump doesn't mean she is a Trump supporter. Her being raised in a socially...
I wouldn't say she supports either of those people. Just meeting with Asad doesn't mean she supports him. Meeting with Trump doesn't mean she is a Trump supporter.
Her being raised in a socially conservative household doesn't mean she hates gay people. She has stated that she doesn't think government has any business in the bedroom.
I like her because for the things I care most about, she supports. It seems like people are starting to try to change what the term progressive means. To me, progressive means things like supporting election reform, campaign finance reform, investing in infrastructure and health and education of our people. Basically Bernie or Tulsi if you look at their stated stances.
If you look at say... Kamala Harris's website, she doesn't even have an issues page. The media seems to keep trying to build her up as a front runner because she is a woman and because she is multi ethnic. She "REFLECTS WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOOKS LIKE DERRRRR". They are calling her a progressive prosecutor (Come on. What the hell was progressive about her as a prosecutor?) She's playing along with this. But she doesn't have a progressive vision for why she wants to be president.
This is why I like Bernie and Tulsi. They list out their vision for making America better and don't try to win by appealing to identity politics.
i would not categorize harris as progressive either and i am certainly not a fan of most identity politics but it's pretty wacky to take issue with people 'building up' kamala because she's a...
i would not categorize harris as progressive either and i am certainly not a fan of most identity politics but it's pretty wacky to take issue with people 'building up' kamala because she's a woman and multi-ethnic when there have been zero female presidents (which in a normal country would have changed with the 2016 election) and one who wasn't white (who has subsequently had many of his achievements either attacked, damaged, or rolled back) and then deride the idea that reflecting the party's sex and ethnic makeup in candidate options as a bad thing despite the fact that democrats need their minority coalition to win (and in fact bernie lost in part because he massively neglected reaching out to most minority voters on top of clinton's huge advantages with them)
also kamala is the presumptive front runner independent of that. she is very popular with just about everybody who's not a leftist, and she's generally polling better than bernie is.
It's in no way a bad thing that Kamala Harris is female or multi-ethnic. I just think it's a bad thing that her entire justification for running seems to boil down to "non-white, female,...
It's in no way a bad thing that Kamala Harris is female or multi-ethnic. I just think it's a bad thing that her entire justification for running seems to boil down to "non-white, female, progressive". And she's not even progressive! She feels like Hillary Clinton 2.0.
Regarding polls, I just looked through ReaClear Politics. For the primary, Bernie polls higher than Harris. For the general election, in most polls against Trump, Bernie has polled higher.
nationally, sure, but not statewide. harris has been leading bernie in recent statewide polls which suggests that his national popularity does not translate to what actually matters, which is...
Regarding polls, I just looked through ReaClear Politics. For the primary, Bernie polls higher than Harris.
nationally, sure, but not statewide. harris has been leading bernie in recent statewide polls which suggests that his national popularity does not translate to what actually matters, which is statewide votes.
I like a lot about Elizabeth Warren (although she really pissed me off last primary). However, I don't see her having as good of a chance against Trump as I would like. People who already like her...
I like a lot about Elizabeth Warren (although she really pissed me off last primary). However, I don't see her having as good of a chance against Trump as I would like. People who already like her may not care about the Native American thing, but it looks really bad to a lot of people. Hell, I like her and it looks really bad to me. It would be an anchor around her neck.
I'm disappointed that she did the DNA test. Things like that just tell me she would get blown out in a general versus Trump. That stuff is like red meat to them. Claiming you are of Native...
I'm disappointed that she did the DNA test. Things like that just tell me she would get blown out in a general versus Trump. That stuff is like red meat to them. Claiming you are of Native American heritag because of a DNA test is widely considered by tribal members to be offensive, including the Cherokee.
If Bernie doesn't win, I'd love to see a Warren win, but I think the DNA test was a complete unforced error on her part.
I'm actually really glad to see she apologized. I wasn't aware she had! With that being the case, I am a lot less apprehensive of her than I was previously.
I'm actually really glad to see she apologized. I wasn't aware she had! With that being the case, I am a lot less apprehensive of her than I was previously.
I've never heard of Tulsi Gabbard before this comment chain, but can we please stop using items like this in our evaluations? The credibility of your entire assessment goes out the window because...
I've never heard of Tulsi Gabbard before this comment chain, but can we please stop using items like this in our evaluations?
Infamous KKK grand wizard David Duke endorsed her run for President.
The credibility of your entire assessment goes out the window because you've thrown something in the middle that quite literally means nothing. The world has plenty of terrible people endorsing pretty much any candidate.
i mean, it kinda does when she's literally seen as by far righters as basically their candidate, ready to be redpilled and converted. tulsi has attracted the support and endorsements of a number...
The credibility of your entire assessment goes out the window because you've thrown something in the middle that quite literally means nothing. The world has plenty of terrible people endorsing pretty much any candidate.
i mean, it kinda does when she's literally seen as by far righters as basically their candidate, ready to be redpilled and converted. tulsi has attracted the support and endorsements of a number of far-right pundits and figures just on her rhetoric and policy positions because they're so similar to what far-righters want. it's not just david duke and it never has been since tulsi announced her candidacy
The Democrats lost because they didn't get what was going on. I'm still not sure they do. Trump won not because he was the right person for the job, but because he did get what was going on....
The Democrats lost because they didn't get what was going on. I'm still not sure they do. Trump won not because he was the right person for the job, but because he did get what was going on. People were very frustrated with the Washington Party. They voted against it.
At this time I couldn't tell you what's going on with voters. It's too early. But one thing that Bernie will do: His campaign has the chance to focus the frustrated voters and some of the candidates on what is going on this time. He's already gotten the attention of the Democrats. Now we'll see what the Republicans run on and see where they are now. They have a chance to abandon Trump. Will they? Wait and see.
This is why I'm going to support him this time around, actually. Bernie was the only candidate on either side that was able to sincerely read the room. If you scroll up to his announcement email,...
This is why I'm going to support him this time around, actually. Bernie was the only candidate on either side that was able to sincerely read the room. If you scroll up to his announcement email, its apparent that he's able to do so again.
The thing is, Bernie is the perfect candidate to take down Trump. Trump, I believe, will not be reelected by any stretch. He only barely managed to game the system the first time, and whats more, the entire reason he ran - the rollbacks and tax cuts - have already been implemented. With all the ill will he's cultivated and his low approval ratings throughout the duration of his term, there is absolutely no way he can cultivate his shadow majority a second time.
Sanders has taken Trump's rhetoric and facade and is running it honestly. Find me another candidate with the stones to honestly tear down our institution like he has. Trump has supplied the democratic party with an enormous stockpile of ammunition, and there's no one better than Sanders to fire it back at him, from policy to personal.
I have to agree. It's amazing how he motivated folks on 2016 and is now doing it all over again. This time around I expect some very ugly things will happen. As far as the right-leaning people I...
I have to agree. It's amazing how he motivated folks on 2016 and is now doing it all over again.
This time around I expect some very ugly things will happen. As far as the right-leaning people I know, Bernie is as dangerous as Hitler, which of course is the way many people on the left view Trump. A smart and very lucky middle candidate might wedge their way in, we'll see. Meanwhile, it will be interesting. I think Bernie will stay focused on Trump while his presumed Democratic opponents figure out their strategies. Hillary's strategy was total win-at-any-cost politics. The Republicans will be worse.
The whole Democratic Party will probably be branded as Democratic SOCIALISTS with all the derogatory imagery that label can stand. This one depends on the younger voters and the truly disenfranchised voting for Bernie, because the establishment stance is that the whole electorate is cattle, to be prodded and manipulated.
i genuinely hope they do this because it's worked really well in making leftism palatable to people that would otherwise reject it and it's probably why people like AOC are getting elected now....
The whole Democratic Party will probably be branded as Democratic SOCIALISTS with all the derogatory imagery that label can stand.
i genuinely hope they do this because it's worked really well in making leftism palatable to people that would otherwise reject it and it's probably why people like AOC are getting elected now. the "Socialist" boogeyman only works when people are actually afraid of its implementation and overwhelmingly, that's not the case anymore. maybe we'll even get an actually viable party that is also actually fucking center-left eventually if they keep it up!
Truth, on all levels. Really what it boils down to is if the democrats have realized that the middle class is suffering or not. If they do, they'll get elected, because Bernie is that voice that...
Truth, on all levels. Really what it boils down to is if the democrats have realized that the middle class is suffering or not. If they do, they'll get elected, because Bernie is that voice that suburban america craves. If they don't it'll be close. The reason Clinton lost was because she catered to the minorities, the LGBTQ, the women, etc., so hard, that she lost sight of actually talking to America. All they need to do is NOT THAT.
They just seemed so hard set against Sanders for some reason. They're so firmly entrenched in their institution that it's killing their own voter base. The fact that the dude took the missing 30 from Clinton's 60% support on the last primary should be all they need to know, to know not to sabotage the guy this time around. "Grab Em By The Pussy" Trump has proved that you can put any label on anyone (including rapist!) and still get them elected, so all the dems need to do is stop sucking the establishment cock, acknowledge that the game is fundamentally different than it was 8 years ago, and put their support by the candidate that the people overwhelmingly, obviously want rather than the one the dollars decide to market.
(If you're interested in how the dems sabotaged Sanders, take a look at the screentime figures of him vs. Clinton during the primary. He was also on the bottom of the roster on the ballots. I learned secondhand that several young districts (I lived in a college town during the last election) had mild sabotage at the polls as well.)
It seems like Biden is gonna announce today at 3pm at an event at Penn. Not sure where else to post this but just want to share what I know. It's not unusual for him to be holding a "conversation...
It seems like Biden is gonna announce today at 3pm at an event at Penn. Not sure where else to post this but just want to share what I know. It's not unusual for him to be holding a "conversation with Joe Biden" event like this at Penn but this one is strictly closed to Penn students and staff unlike any past ones iirc. I guess if I see a bunch of TV cameras when I roll up it will be pretty evident.
Even in the face of the OP, I am vastly less impressed with Joe Biden than I am with Bernie Sanders. Biden is an intellectual fly-weight and the old saying applies to his policies: "what's good...
Even in the face of the OP, I am vastly less impressed with Joe Biden than I am with Bernie Sanders. Biden is an intellectual fly-weight and the old saying applies to his policies: "what's good isn't original, and what's original isn't good."
He's a tireless Democratic Party foot-soldier with a made-for-TV backstory, but his politics are straight-down-the-antique-middle.
I'm not surprised. The speculation was Biden was waiting for Bernie (and in fact might only run if Bernie does in order to prevent Bernie from gaining the nomination).
I'm not surprised. The speculation was Biden was waiting for Bernie (and in fact might only run if Bernie does in order to prevent Bernie from gaining the nomination).
I like Bernie Sanders. I like a lot of his positions. There is no way in Hell he would get elected, and even if he did, there is no way in Hell he would be able to get those policies implemented....
I like Bernie Sanders. I like a lot of his positions. There is no way in Hell he would get elected, and even if he did, there is no way in Hell he would be able to get those policies implemented. America isn't ready for those ideas yet. We can't go from "screw you I've got mine" to "we are all one family" in a single presidency. We need baby steps.
Potentially. I think it's too early in the election cycle to be talking about meta-election strategy. In 2016, if the republicans had done meta-analysis about what America is ready for, they...
Potentially. I think it's too early in the election cycle to be talking about meta-election strategy. In 2016, if the republicans had done meta-analysis about what America is ready for, they wouldn't have come up with Trump, they would have probably gone with Rubio. But people voted for who they supported, and when it came time for the actual election, their guy won.
"I like Bernie but I won't vote for him because enough other people don't like him therefore he can't win" was a huge issue for his campaign in 2016, and at the end of the day, our "safe candidate" lost anyways, because (in my relatively uninformed, and under-sampled opinion), no one was really "excited" to vote for Hillary. Obviously she had her strong base of democrats. But a lot of people voted for "not trump" and a lot of people just couldn't pull the trigger on her at all. Especially in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana. States where Bernie won delegates. Not to say that Bernie would have won against Trump. I'm just saying I think people are trying to play too much game theory instead of just voting for people that they think will be a good president.
The problem is, part of being a good president is having policies you can implement. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the core plank of your platform is "end all war now" if you have no...
The problem is, part of being a good president is having policies you can implement. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the core plank of your platform is "end all war now" if you have no way of achieving it, and unfortunately the political system is needed to achieve things.
As a libertarian who doesn't mind socialism, I feel like this election I'll be voting Democrat regardless of any other factors, or who wins the nomination. All of this constant, pointless,...
As a libertarian who doesn't mind socialism, I feel like this election I'll be voting Democrat regardless of any other factors, or who wins the nomination. All of this constant, pointless, self-destructive bickering about who is the 'right' democrat is really starting to get on my nerves. I'll happily hear out every single candidate who wants to campaign for the nomination. What I won't be doing is wringing my hands and nitpicking all of them to death over meaningless non-issues from their past that have been blown way out of proportion. I'll let Bill explain that mindset since he does a better job than I could.
I don't really know what to think about Sanders for 2020. He's been in a very interesting position in the past two years, in that he has been used by the right and left alike as a cudgel with...
I don't really know what to think about Sanders for 2020. He's been in a very interesting position in the past two years, in that he has been used by the right and left alike as a cudgel with which to beat up Clinton. I suspect that if he were to become the democratic frontrunner he would be successfully subject to a great deal of character assassination he has so far avoided. And this is all independent of policy.
I'm also somewhat curious how interested the US body politic will be in a more significant change, after a few years of Trump's guidance. My general sense is that after eight years of more or less the status quo under Obama, those who have been less successful under it were interested in overturning the apple cart one way or another, making Sanders or Trump especially attractive candidates.
As a Muslim I could never support a de facto ISIS apologist. Sanders has never once transgressed the establishment from a foreign policy standpoint. His repetition of the co-opted Trump-Russian...
As a Muslim I could never support a de facto ISIS apologist. Sanders has never once transgressed the establishment from a foreign policy standpoint. His repetition of the co-opted Trump-Russian "collusion" meme is disingenuous, and his falling right in line on the Assad "gassing his own people" war rhetoric is downright evil. My personal preference for Sanders over Trump or Clinton is 0 points, though I generally prefer his fan base to theirs. Love and Light
This will be controversial, but I'm not thrilled about this.
For the record, I believe Bernie Sanders' role in failing to wholeheartedly support Clinton against Trump helped put us in the situation we now face.
Bernie Sanders doesn't know beans about how to govern.
He's been about as effective a legislator as possible given his relative distance from the center of gravity in American politics. He's a fair, but not great, coalition builder.
But the U.S. Senate doesn't do a good job of preparing people for national executive power. The electoral constituencies for seats are too heavily defined by geography, and Senators aren't exposed to national concerns other than those of their voluntary committee memberships. Sanders has zero experience with foreign policy, military matters other than veterans' health, industrial policy... He has been the mayor of a small city, Burlington, VT, but that's not representative of challenges at a national scale either.
There are plenty of landmines in Sanders' personal history (though at least no exposed rape or harassment allegations), which would be far more exposed in a national election against Trump. He escaped intense scrutiny and ratf*cking in the 2016 election, mainly because he was so useful a foil against Hillary Clinton. [FYI, not an unwavering fan of hers, either - I contributed to Sanders in the primary in the hope that it would shift the party platform and give life to Clinton's bland, status quo policy messaging, but expected her to be competent enough to execute.]
Sanders' "democratic socialism" consists mainly of warmed-over New Deal policies, with a side helping of the national health care strategy which Clinton pioneered. Not a bad start, but wholly inadequate to deal with the challenges of 21st Century America.
Mainly, I'm hoping the next year's Democratic Party primary campaigning exposes a better candidate. There's a lot of talent and energy in the field right now. Of course, there's the usual risk that the primaries will turn into a circular firing squad and leave no candidate who can defeat Trump.
Not a very deep analysis on my part, but it's a heartfelt first pass.
Bernie converted more followers to Hillary than she did to Obama - this whole post(smear) is just weak sauce man.
It was an extremely close election. Literally every factor is "to blame" by this logic. Why not blame restrictive work schedules for service workers, which suppresses many times more votes than a handful of Bernie fanboys?
There will always be some number of people who don't show up to vote or don't like the main candidate. Blaming these extremely small margins for the result rather than actual systemic factors becomes a lame attempt at scapegoating rather than an honest accounting of issues. It's a common thread that establishment figures pull off to avoid dealing with blame or blowback. They can never fail, they can only ever be failed.
Your first article says that the sort of defection you are referring to is normal in primary/general conversion - 12% of Republican primary voters voted for Clinton.
I'm not going to even look at your other sources - it's obvious to me that you're just here to poke at old 2016 wounds.
I definitely agree with your analysis and would add the age concerns (Sanders is turning 78 this year). However, as I'm not really invested in this subject, could you elaborate on who you meant when you wrote "There's a lot of talent and energy in the field right now"? I mean I like Biden, but I have the same age concerns for him (turning 77 this year) and wasn't very successful in his first 2 runs in 1988 and 2008. He was a long standing member of the Senate, but I think as a Vice President, he should be a better fit for president than most senators as you stated. Otherwise there is Elizabeth Warren and some FOTM names like Beto O'Rourke, who all lack either experience or charisma as I heard. As I said, I am not too deep in this subject, so I was wondering if I missed someone?
I'm less concerned with the age of the candidates as long as they're in general good health and cognitively intact. I realize that the risk of system failure increases with age, but most of the older candidates are withstanding the stress of their positions reasonably well. They likely have adequate reserve capacity for a few more good years.
Rather than the absolute ages of the candidates, what bothers me is the gerontocratic presumption - that they've earned position through mere survival in office, regardless of their politics and what they've actually learned or accomplished (e.g. Joe Biden).
So I'm still doing research, but here's a capsule summary that I'll elaborate on:
Joe Biden - I respect him greatly as a person, but he's been the epitome of mediocre as a legislator and campaigner. People complained about Hillary Clinton's political triangulation, but Biden has hardly ever been anything but middle-of-the-road, aiming exactly between the poles of the Republican and Democratic Parties even as the Overton Window moved rightwards.
Elizabeth Warren - one of the most intelligent people running, and a deep student of banking law. I've browsed through a couple of her draft bills, and she's no stranger to detail or thoughtful, farsighted strategy.
Warren got into public politics opposing the removal of personal bankruptcy protection which Joe Biden eventually voted for in 2005. Her political shrewdness in repackaging Bernie Sanders' New Deal 2.0 as saving capitalism from itself is noteworthy. And yet, I hate the idea of granting any "personhood" status to corporations, even for the purpose of regulating them. Others have pointed out that some of her ideas (corporate personhood, wealth tax) would require rewriting the Constitution. In many respects, she still thinks like an academic lawyer, and doesn't have enough knowledge of economic ground truth.
Unfortunately, Warren's pissed off some very rich people and is vulnerable to many of the same dirty tricks that worked against Hillary Clinton. Warren doesn't have broad policy experience, especially with respect to foreign policy - it's going to take a wizard to repair the damage DT has done.
I'll group the candidates, including people who haven't announced yet, in broad categories:
Social Democrats/Progressives: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley
Experienced in politics, but mainstream Democratic Party, PAC-backed "pragmatists". May endorse some progressive/green policies, but no cohesive agenda: Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Joe Biden (as discussed above), Jay Inslee, Eric Holder, Terry McAuliffe, John Kerry, Michael Bennett
Intriguing outsiders (some distance from mainstream Democrats, not necessarily sound on policy or experienced at the national level): Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Steve Bullock
Stealth Republicans (old-school pro-business and/or plutocrats) - Michael Bloomberg, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Cuomo
Single-issue and/or loons: Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Seth Moulton
Obviously, a substantial proportion of these people have show-stoppers in their histories that are likely guarantees of primary defeat, e.g. Tulsi Gabbard's history of anti-gay pronouncements, Eric Holder's criminal justice record, etc.
What a great comment! I think you're spot on with your groupings and you've introduced me to some candidates who I didn't know were running.
Minor correction - some of the candidates listed haven't announced they're running yet, they've just announced the formation of exploratory committees. The Rolling Stone list was the most up-to-date comprehensive resource I could find.
I'd qualified my assessment with "may endorse some progressive/green policies, but no cohesive agenda" and I'll stand by that in the cases you mention. Show me their clean politics policy agendas, and I'll reassess.
I'm looking for someone who wants to champion public national election funding, a universal right to vote, and the dilution or abolition of the Electoral College. Tiny asks, I know. :-)
Wondering the same. Warren is a sure loser (love her to death but you're not getting white males in the midwest to vote for her). Beto has zip for experience. He's not running but I look for Kennedy to do something in the next 10 years. He has youth and a recognizable name.
Keeping my eye on Sherrod Brown - I see him as someone who might shake things up.
I don't know about this.
When I organized in the rural midwest, almost every person I talked to (bernie supporter or hillary) said that they'd love to have seen Warren instead of either of them.
I sincerely hope you're right. Warren is the type of old school progressive that I think we're in dire need of (Bernie too, but she seems more grounded).
And why not? Why wouldn't a political party select and push their favored nominee? There is nothing wrong about that and there is NOTHING about the party system that says "we must have a primary and choose the most popular person." They make their own rules so they can change them whenever they like.
I keep seeing comments like this where folks seem to be under the impression that the political parties are under some kind of law where they must do X or Y. They're private organizations - not public. But folks want to slap their preconceived notions of fairness on these institutions as if they had anything to do with setting up and running them.
The democratic and republican parties are effectively gatekeepers to our democracy. If you agree that democracy is the most effective form of government, demanding that the gatekeepers to democracy be managed democratically is a no-brainer.
Then do it! Join a political party and get involved and change it.
I'm not arguing it's a good thing, just that it's a thing, it's human, and understandable, and teeth gnashing and foot stomping doesn't change that.
You did argue it was a good thing, or at least not a bad thing, though - you literally said there was nothing wrong about that.
(I’d normally downvote and move on but this is one of those times I needed to explain myself instead. No hard feelings but it feels like you walked it back and aren’t acknowledging what you said.)
A fair point! Don't worry, no hard feelings here at all. I enjoy a good discussion.
What I'm trying to say is there isn't anything wrong or illegal or even unfair about a private organization doing things the way they want. I'm not trying to walk anything back, just to make a narrow point that private organizations like political parties can and should make their own rules. That is a good thing.
What people seem to be upset about (other than their guy losing) is that the Democratic party (and Republican too) have said the rules are X but seemed to take strides to work around or change those rules when their base of power is threatened. I see that as expected, human, and in line with how things have worked historically.
So from that point of view, I don't see anything wrong as it's in line with the law, human nature, and how the parties have worked historically. Someone can say "that's not fair!" and the counterpoint is "who ever promised it was fair?" Because it's not and never has been.
That said, it's not the best system and if we want a better system then we must get involved. Without a massive revolution, the change you seek must come from within the parties. And I think you'll find that if you join one, get involved, and work your way up to the top, then you'll probably feel and do many of the same things that the parties currently do.
EDIT: Also just realized I was having a discussion with three different people lol
Honestly, I've thought it was really weird all of the main news media has been talking about Kamala Harris since 2016. She's been the first name brought up in almost every article I've read for a few years now. Why? She was literally JUST elected to the senate and had basically no national name recognition. Why would she be anyone's first thought for presidential candidates? I've had a sick feeling they were going to try to drive this person down our throats. Ugh.
she's not a "possibly" strong candidate so much as the literal, likely frontrunner when biden inevitably crashes and burns because his support is entirely predicated on name recognition and not actual policy. harris has regularly been placing second (or sometimes third) in the polling that's taken place since she jumped in and she has the support of people like hillary clinton and a large number of california's state and federal congresspeople. she's also a diverse, fairly young candidate and she has a probable structural advantage in the primary because of how early california is in the primary cycle in 2020.
I think this is kind of weird to state before there's even any actual platform up, especially considering Biden has been politically active before so it's a little far-fetched to state he won't have actual policy, or that he won't compared to Harris in any case.
it's not that weird if you're in tune with the daily going-ons of politics like i tend to be. biden is basically a paper tiger because his actual policy is terrible, his track record is even worse, and when you actually put him up to be judged, he is very clearly out of lockstep with the modern democratic party. his entire path at this point pretty much consists of being able to make it to the convention and getting the nod in a brokered convention, because he's one of the furthest right candidates that the democrats could possibly run nowadays and genuinely appeals to approximately nobody. he's exceedingly likely to collapse the moment he gets pushed on what he stands for because i guarantee you, it's not what democratic voters want.
Knowing the democratic party, Chelsea Clinton will be given the nomination any moment now.
God I hope so. I've not heard of a candidate yet that I think has a shot against an energized Trump and Russian dark money. Biden is the only name I've heard yet (hasn't announced he'd run..yet) that I think has a chance with white male working class voters. Beto could be good but has zip for experience. Booker or Harris might make good VPs. I could get behind Harris if she had a more defined campaign platform - she flubbed some gimmes in her announcement interviews that make me super nervous about her.
Correction: Sherrod Brown shouldn't be discounted. He's spending time in the places where he needs to do so right now and might be a surprise contender in Iowa.
Harris has so much troubling stuff hanging behind her, she would be a field day for Trump to hammer.
I don't think it's going to be that clear-cut, you can't just say "I'm law and order" on repeat for your political slogan. She's going to have to answer concerns and criticisms of her past, as well as current stances in order to keep a good record and keep the democratic tent united, and if her announcement is any indication she's does not have Obama or Biden's recovery.
Sanders DID endorse her and campaign for her as far as her team would let him. This is entirely sour grapes from Clinton fans claiming he didn't endorse her hard enough which is just the silliest damn complaint to have. Maybe Clinton should have done more to win over Sanders voters instead of deliberately sidelining him from the post-primary campaign trail and telling Sanders' voters (many of whom are new to being involved in politics) to sit down, shut up, and get in line. It's not at all shocking that she'd have trouble winning turnout if her entire campaign was intent on nursing grievances that Clinton was challenged at all.
They did the same thing in 2008 too. The hatred from the Clinton camp towards Obama was staggering.
Yeah, I think Bernie did what he could there. No hate for Bernie :)
You have to understand how the American presidential election system works in order to make an informed decision here. There are really only two decisions that you can make when it comes to voting. Help your favorite/"least disliked"/most palatable candidate, or hurt them. Not voting hurts them. Voting for anyone other than a republican/democrat hurts them.
The so called third options that people propose aren't real options. They do nothing and serve only to hurt whoever your favorite candidate out of R or D is. There's exactly zero chance of a third party ever being elected president in the country, so the smart move is to always vote, even if the choice is between someone you absolutely hate more than anything in the world, and someone you merely detest.
The "protest vote", the independent candidates, and the third parties are just an illusion, and taking those options are in actuality just casting a partial vote for the candidate you like the least.
No it isn't.
First past the post voting being enshrined by the constitution got us into a 2 party system. It's a fundamental observation in political science that FPTP always results in only two viable political parties.
If you want to get away from a 2 party system, vote for candidates among the major parties in the primaries that support moving away from it, not a third party. Voting for a third party will only ever result in helping your least favorite candidate. The chances of the majority of the country suddenly abandoning rational voting behaviors and instead simply voting for their most preferred candidate are ridiculously small. The chances that the majority of the country doing that and also having your chosen candidate as their preferred candidate is virtually nothing. That's why voting for third parties is irrational.
I recently saw a video on youtube that actually explains why two major parties always arise in FPTP systems here. Definitely worth a watch to understand the game theory behind how American elections work.
I don't think the Democrats support him as much as they did back in 2015-2016.
Plus, he's incredibly old by now. Even if elected, his presidency would start near age 80.
His health would be 'the elephant in the room' for his whole term.
I really don't think Sanders caused people not to vote for Clinton. Sanders supporters voted for her more than her supporters did for Obama in 2008.
Also, of all the candidates currently in the ring, I don't think any have shown (so far) the same ability as Sanders to generate excitement. He had enormous crowds in comparison to Clinton's. I thought at the time, she won partially from name recognition, so if he had had a couple more months, he might have won the primary. I kinda like Warren, but she isn't as charismatic as Bernie and that whole Pocahontas thing is a HUGE anchor around her neck in my opinion.
Anyway, I'll be voting for Sanders partially because he seems to be the most sincere politician in America (who also mostly aligns with my politics). He doesn't change his beliefs at the drop of a hat and he has consistently promoted policies that he believed would help people. I'm really interested to see what happens now that he's starting as a front runner.
I personally did not vote for Clinton due to how badly the democratic party treated Bernie and how they just handed the nomination to her. I know I am not the only one; it was extremely frustrating watching that happen because I knew that Clinton would lose to Trump immediately. (I was so disgusted I just chose not to vote at all)
This always irritates me whenever I hear it.
It's the democratic party and Bernie was a self-avowed Independent who was using the Democratic party because it's was more effective than running as an independent. This whole idea that the party's must be "fair" or "balanced" in how they treat candidates is a recent fiction and has never been born out in reality. You have a hostile person coming in to take over a group...who says he's not about what the group is about...who states openly that he's subverting it....and you're disgusted that the party didn't welcome him in with open arms. I just don't get it.
EDIT: There are several comments that are similar so I'm just going to reply here. For those of you saying "that's undemocratic!" I'd point you to the long history of the political parties in the U.S. and remind you that the very idea of having political parties was viewed as undemocratic by none other than George Washington himself who famously said
I'm not defending the system. I'm simply pointing out it exists and all of the shouts of "it's not fair!" are not going to actually change anything.
The independents (now 44% of the electorate) in the US have one of three choices - Republican or Democrat or non-participation. This attitude that they should either be vilified as spoilers or not participate is farcical. This is a Democracy and anyone who thinks that a small group of elite gate keepers should determine who the leader is is nothing but undemocratic.
I did not argue either of these things. You're providing a counterpoint to a strawman.
Just for a second, pretend you spent your entire life working for and furthering something, only for someone with no stake in the game, who hadn't done any of that work, came in to take it from you, said at much to everyone around, and then somehow you're the bad guy for sticking by the rules you helped create. That's what happened ... if you decide to look at it from another POV.
My point is that it is only human and natural for them to protect themselves. No party owes it to anyone to nominate a particular person. That's never been the process. You can say "oh well it should be" and I'd agree with you. But you're beating a dog for not being a cat here.
It's not about you. If you build a democratic system and then people come in and vote with different values then you, that's your own fault for participating in a democratic system. Just because you don't like it does not justify subverting democratic values (which the DNC does at least pretend to have by facilitating the nominee process).
Please stop whitewashing what happened. The DNC was not "abiding by rules they created", as if they were some neutral actor merely "upholding the rules". They were actively hostile to Sanders in particular, and the other non-Clinton candidates. Likewise, they showed bias towards Clinton.
No party owes it to nominate anyone, but they don't owe it to anyone to be actively biased either, nor do they owe it to anyone to subvert a democracy by pretending to elect people democratically. What you're doing is not "seeing both sides"—right now you are actively apologizing for completely unethical behavior from the DNC. You're defending undemocratic, underhanded behavior that led to Trump being elected, which would not have happened if Sanders had received the nomination as he should have. People are allowed to complain, and after 2016 people did start politically organizing moreso. This logic is akin to victim blaming.
This is what put me off. If the DNC didn't want to deal with Bernie, then the DNC should have flatly barred him from running as a Democrat (he is an Independent). That was well within their rights and I think it would have sidestepped the need for all the dirty dealing that followed. They probably figured Bernie was a joke and wouldn't get any real traction - their mistake.
They get to do that. It's their party and they'll cry if they want to.
This is a very interesting idea of democracy, where the elite gatekeepers get to decide who's going to be the next President and the rest of us vote to rubber-stamp their choice.
Well I'd say it's less an idea and more our reality...but certainly that's just my perception. But it doesn't always work out for the party elite's though - Trump is definitely proof of that.
And the voters are likewise free to say if the Democratic party wants to be undemocratic they'll stay home.
Of course you all have to live with the outcome, I'm not sure why you're so keen to apportion blame to the voters and not the DNC though.
Yes of course. I'm not trying to apportion blame to the voters. Just to make a narrow point about the parties - so many people come with an expectation that's not founded in reality.
The democratic party should ostensibly operate according to democratic principles. Party leaders choosing winners and losers is literally the exact opposite of democracy.
I agree but I believe this answer is slightly disingenuous. Sanders or not, the democratic party decided from day 1 to give it to Clinton. It's disingenuous to throw one's hands up and go "oh, but this is how it always is, so why are you complaining..?". If a party decides they want one candidate to be nominated, then there shouldn't even be debates or primaries, which waste people's time (such as everyone who had to tabulate the votes or spent time deciding on which candidate they support).
A party SHOULD have democratic, fair elections. We SHOULD be allowed to complain when they subvert that, "precedent" notwithstanding. Even if Bernie isn't a "democrat", he ran in the democratic party's race as a candidate. The people voting should be the ones deciding if he deserves the vote, not a handful people at the top of the party who have zero connection with what voters want.
Well I'd say that the parties are more "disingenuous" than my answer was :)
However, I'd counter that the idea that the party has no idea who is going to lead them and wants the masses to decide for them is fanciful.
The primaries are less about choosing a candidate and more about making sure the elite's chosen candidate can actually perform out in the wild with the public. Remember Jeb Bush? please clap He was the expected front runner from the GOP in 2016 but couldn't perform.
Keyword is should. I admire and agree with the idealism. However, that's not what is happening, and historically is not what has happened. The stomping of feet and gnashing of digital teeth won't change that. That change must come from within the party.
What else is someone like Bernie supposed to do? I'm sure he would love to run in the general election as an independent but it would cause the republican candidate to win. If the Democratic party wants to not let people like Bernie participate, then they should support a new election system like ranked-choice voting.
Exactly what he did. I'm not suggesting he did anything wrong. I'm just tired of people acting like the Democratic establishment was somehow the bad guys or were "unfair" to someone crashing their party.
My gripe is that people see the world as they want it to be, rather than as it is, and people want to demand others change while altering nothing about themselves.
But we were talking about what he could have done in 2015/2016.
I think he doesn't have a shot in hell. And to be clear, to have a shot, you have to run as a Democrat or Republican. I'm not defending it; that's just the reality we live in.
Do you really think so? I feel like most everyone has forgotten he's even running. And he's running to the right of most Democrats if I recall correctly, so wouldn't he be pulling more from the right than the left? Or are least moderates... Stein was so damaging because she pulled left of Democrats. Stein supporters were most likely not going to go for Trump (although I know at least one SMH).
Well shit! That's not good.
I don't think I buy the conventional wisdom that a candidate like Schultz is a spoiler. It presupposes that there are people aware enough of national politics to know who he is and want to vote for him, but not aware of the meme that he's a "spoiler", particularly if they live in a battleground state.
While I agree with the popular sentiment that it is extremely unlikely he'll get a single electoral vote, that's not the only reason to vote for him (and a vote for him does not mean a vote for him would otherwise have gone to whomever the Democrat frontrunner ends up being.) In the end, lots of people don't particularly care for either major party or the narrative of being forced to pick the lesser evil from two duopolists; a vote for a high-profile third party is the most visible way of expressing that view and inching closer to some sort of reform that breaks up the hold the two major parties have on American politics.
Me too, for the exact same reason (although I voted third party).
I probably would have voted for her if I didn't live in a state virtually guaranteed to carry her.
Almost the same situation for me. I voted Green (to try to get a third party to 5%) because I live in a deep red state who would never vote for Clinton in a million years. I'd have threw up a bit in my mouth and voted for her if I lived in a swing state and I despise Hillary Clinton.
Please see my comment about how Jill Stein is a shill for Russia...
Here's more info for you:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jr-jill-stein-putin-russia-senate-639422
Dude, I don't care about that. Jill Stein is never going to get elected president. My goal was entirely trying to gain a third party (any third party) additional standing because I think it will help us eventually get to a better election system like ranked-choice voting.
Okay, I'll entertain that possibility. Doesn't change the fact that I live in a deep red state and my vote doesn't particularly matter. It's not like I encouraged people in Michigan to vote for her.
The comments aren't meant to be directed at you personally or to make anyone feel guilty for their vote. It's just a heads up that this person is shady and hopefully everyone is paying a bit closer attention this time around.
I'm right there with you. I remember seeing this stuff on Stein and the Russians after the election, and it makes me feel weird that I voted for her, but it really doesn't matter in Louisiana. I could've voted for anyone, literally anyone, and it wouldn't have made a difference. And I think that's the biggest problem with the electoral system in this country, that my vote has never actually mattered because I've never lived in a swing state.
Sitting with someone is not evidence of wrongdoing. Has any actual evidence came out that Stein colluded with Russia?
Thanks, that's fair analysis and I'm more suspicious of her now.
I've just grown wary of "Russia!" accusations since we've reached a point where it's being thrown around the same way the alt-right accuses things of being the fault the of the "deep state". Someone on reddit said I was a Russian bot for pointing out that Clinton was in part responsible for destabilizing the government of Honduras which precipitated into the "caravan" last autumn.
That flies in the face of what I've been reading...
Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on
I have another article for you. An estimated 6-12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump. An estimated 24% of Clinton voters voted for Obama. So, a certain percentage of primary loser votes switch sides every time. Bernie's percentage was LESS than the last time. Seems to me Clinton just didn't turn out enough people.
I'm not letting Clinton off the hook.
I'm just pointing out that what you stated is not accurate, or at least not as I read it. Any third-party candidate draws votes from one party of the other. Just because it was less than last time doesn't mean it wasn't damaging.
Okay, I might should have used more precise wording. I don't think Sanders supporters didn't vote for Clinton at any higher rate than what is normal for a primary loser. In fact, it was lower than last time. So I don't think it is fair to attack Sanders or his supporters about this.
Fair. Sanders was no more a spoiler to Clinton than Clinton was to Obama - got it, that makes sense. There are a ton of reasons why Clinton lost - the biggest being Clinton.
Don't forget to pass some of that blame out to Jill Stein who was a Russian stooge who focused the Green party's efforts on swing states where they had no chance, the only motivation could have been to sabotage Clinton.
Here's a photo of her having dinner with Putin: https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3fXnYwm.jpg&f=1
This is pure red-baiting?
Hardly. Here are some news articles that discuss it:
Jill Stein looped into widening investigation of Russia and Trump Jr. connections
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343292-jill-stein-looped-into-widening-investigation-of-russia-and-trump-jr
Russia Investigation: Jill Stein Explains Her Relationship to Putin, Trump and Hillary Clinton
https://www.newsweek.com/2017/09/08/jill-stein-interview-russia-trump-645722.html
Washington’s Russia Circus Comes for Jill Stein
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/senate-intelligence-committee-jill-stein-russia
The most upsetting thing about Jill Stein in 2016 to add context to your comment is that Donald Trump won by about 80k votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - Jill Stein took 130k votes from those three states, including totals larger than the vote difference between Clinton and Trump in Michigan and Wisconsin. The electoral college is idiocy.
And why was she campaigning so hard in those states? If the Green party really wants to get to 5% then wouldn't they want to target blue states? Any why is she on RT all the time?
...ooooooooooooooooooor to get to 5%? Just a guess.
This comment really stuck in my head so I did some research.
Her strategy of running mostly in swing states doesn't make sense for the goal of getting to 5%. Why run in rust-belt purple and red states at all? Why wouldn't you spend your money where the most progressives are like in California and Colorado.
You can see from the vote totals that she didn't get much bang for her buck out in say, Michigan (see page 6): https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf
She got ~50K votes in Michigan vs ~250K in California. Why would you spend your time in MI if you were trying to get to 5%? Wouldn't you target states that are friendly to you?
In what may just be a coincidence (but raises my eyebrows), Trump won most of those states by about the same margin that Stein received.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three
Presumably, swing states were perceivedly more versatile in who they vote for, I'd imagine.
Can you help me understand why you think the Green party would get more votes in swing states than states that are more sympathetic to them?
I just gave reasoning. I'm starting to think you're just anti-Green.
This was the announcement email if anyone is interested:
Brothers and Sisters--
I am writing to let you know I have decided to run for president of the United States. I am asking you today to join me as part of an unprecedented and historic grassroots campaign that will begin with at least a million people from across the country.
Please join our campaign for president on day one and commit to doing what it takes to win this election.
Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election.
Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.
Our campaign is about taking on the powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life. I'm talking about Wall Street, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military-industrial complex, the private-prison industry and the large multi-national corporations that exert such an enormous influence over our lives.
Our campaign is about redoubling our efforts to end racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry and all forms of discrimination.
Our campaign is about creating a vibrant democracy with the highest voter turnout of any major country while we end voter suppression, Citizens United and outrageous levels of gerrymandering.
Our campaign is about creating a government and economy that works for the many, not just the few. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We should not have grotesque levels of wealth inequality in which three billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the country.
We should not have 30 million Americans without any health insurance, even more who are under-insured and a nation in which life expectancy is actually in decline.
We should not have an economy in which tens of millions of workers earn starvation wages and half of older workers have no savings as they face retirement.
We should not have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth and a dysfunctional childcare system which is unfair to both working parents and their children.
We should not have a regressive tax system in which large, profitable corporations like Amazon pay nothing in federal income taxes.
Make no mistake about it. The powerful special interests in this country have unbelievable power and they want to maintain the status quo. They have unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns and lobbying and have huge influence over the media and political parties.
The only way we will win this election and create a government and economy that works for all is with a grassroots movement – the likes of which has never been seen in American history.
They may have the money and power. We have the people. That is why we need one million Americans who will commit themselves to this campaign.
Stand with me as we fight to win the Democratic nomination and the general election. Add your name to join this campaign and say you are willing to do the hard work necessary to transform our country.
You know as well as I do that we are living in a pivotal and dangerous moment in American history. We are running against a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction.
I’m running for president because, now more than ever, we need leadership that brings us together – not divides us up. Women and men, black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, native born and immigrant. Now is the time for us to stand together.
I’m running for president because we need leadership that will fight for working families and the shrinking middle class, not just the 1 percent. We need a president who understands that we can create millions of good-paying jobs, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and construct the affordable housing we desperately need.
I'm running for president because we need trade policies that reflect the interests of workers and not multi-national corporations. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, provide pay equity for women and guarantee all workers paid family and medical leave.
I'm running for president because we need to understand that artificial intelligence and robotics must benefit the needs of workers, not just corporate America and those who own that technology.
I'm running for president because a great nation is judged not by how many billionaires and nuclear weapons it has, but by how it treats the most vulnerable – the elderly, the children, our veterans, the sick and the poor.
I’m running for president because we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics. We need a president who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
I’m running for president because the time is long overdue for the United States to join every other major country on Earth and guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all program.
I’m running for president because we need to take on the outrageous level of greed of the pharmaceutical industry and lower prescription drug prices in this country.
I'm running for president because we need to have the best educated workforce in the world. It is totally counter-productive for our future that millions of Americans are carrying outrageous levels of student debt, while many others cannot afford the high cost of higher education. That is why we need to make public colleges and universities tuition free and lower student debt.
I’m running for president because we must defend a woman’s right to control her own body against massive political attacks taking place at the local state and federal level.
I'm running for president because we need real criminal justice reform. We need to invest in jobs and education for our kids, not more jails and incarceration. We need to end the destructive "war on drugs," eliminate private prisons and cash bail and bring about major police department reform.
I'm running for president because we need to end the demonization of undocumented immigrants in this country and move to comprehensive immigration reform. We need to provide immediate legal status for the young people eligible for the DACA program and develop a humane policy for those at the border who seek asylum.
I'm running for president because we must end the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We need to take on the NRA, expand background checks, end the gun show loophole and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons.
I'm running for president because we need a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and world peace. The United States must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism and global wealth inequality.
That is why we need at least a million people to join our campaign and help lead the movement that can accomplish these goals. Add your name to say we’re in this together.
Needless to say, there is a lot of frightening and bad news in this world. Now, let me give you some very good news.
Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were "radical," and "extreme." We were told that Medicare for All, a $15 an hour minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, aggressively combating climate change, demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, were all of concepts that the American people would never accept.
Well, three years have come and gone. And, as result of millions of Americans standing up and fighting back, all of these policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans.
Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.
So here is my question for you:
Will you stand with me as part of a million person grassroots movement which can not only win the Democratic primary, not only win the general election but most importantly help transform this country so that, finally, we have a government that works for all of us and not just the few? Add your name to say you will.
Together we can create a nation that leads the world in the struggle for peace and for economic, racial, social and environmental justice.
And together we can defeat Donald Trump and repair the damage he has done to our country.
Brothers and sisters, if we stand together, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.
I hope you will join me.
Thank you very much.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
I'm surprised at how negative a lot of people's reactions to this are. An announcement isn't necessarily the place to get into policy, and I haven't really started doing research into all of the candidates joining the race this cycle. But I think at least these 2 things are true:
In a primary election, every candidate who is running in earnest with good intentions is a benefit to the party and the electorate. Diverse opinions between people who all generally want the same thing but have different plans on how to do it is a good thing.
Bernie Sanders' run for president in 2016 had a lasting effect on the democratic party. AOC won an "upset" election against a career democrat. Bernie's "Our Revolution" organization bankrolled a bunch of progressive candidates in the 2018 midterm. He lost his personal campaign, but continued to fight to get his own agenda into Washington.
Those 2 statements are already opinions I guess, but I think pretty defensible. On to a little more commentary that's off the cuff. I like Bernie Sanders, and I think point 2 is a good thing. I can respect a differing view that Bernie's agenda is bad, and it's bad that he's advancing it.
When you look at someone like Elizabeth Warren, I think she's a perfectly good candidate. Her policies would probably be comparable to Bernie's. She's younger, maybe she could get more support from a female base who wants to elect a woman. I am ready to hear out all of the dem candidates and I am specifically looking forward to see how a front-runner like Warren will brand her campaign. But my initial thoughts a priori are that she is comparable to Hillary, maybe a little more left, and a little more earnest. I don't see how she's going to appeal to Michigan or Wisconsin. In 2016 when they were doing polling about potential matchups, I remember Bernie polling better among republicans and independents than Hillary did. Bernie appealed to working class Americans. Maybe 4 years later, with the renown of his political fame seeping into the culture, he won't appeal to them anymore. Maybe he will have lost a step and not have the energy to appeal to them anymore. But in 2016 he was this beacon, to working class people, representing a guy that's worked a day in his life, isn't a millionaire, or if he is, barely, and was a straight shooter. I'm not saying all republicans were going to vote for him. But many republicans respected him.
Obviously I was a Bernie voter in 2016, and I will probably vote for him again, although like I said, I think there's a very healthy primary lineup and I'm excited to give others a shot. At the end of the day, I think that he has had an enormous impact on American politics. Greater than Hillary Clinton had, greater than any of his primary opponents have had so far. His ability to rally an unprecedented number of donations and volunteers to match one of the most pre-ordained and traditionally well-funded campaigns in 2016, and roll that machine into other campaigns in 2018 give me confidence in Bernie-as-inspirer, Bernie-as-executive, and Bernie-as-delegator. I think for any democrat, no matter where you fall on the spectrum, his entering the race only brings good discussion and a lively base of voters. The overall negativity in these comments about being too old and splitting the party and whatever rubs me the wrong way. This is a primary. If he's too old, let that play out on the campaign trail. You can't split the vote in a primary. And as always, it's the eventual candidate's job to win over voters themselves. Bernie voters voted for Hillary, even though he ran against her. And he would be perfectly capable of not running, then sandbagging the eventual candidate to his army of supporters anyways. His entering the race, on it's own, has no impact on what his supporters will do in Nov 2020.
I respect Warren for roughly the same reasons, but I think she's a disastrous candidate for this particular election. Aside from the general appeal you mention, my feeling is that she just hasn't demonstrated any command over the type of messaging that's effective at this point in time. That's no slight against her -- it's almost less respectable to be a forceful politician in 2018 -- but I just think her "public character" leaves space that'd be all too easy for Trump and his cronies to fill with rot. That she's an intelligent and experienced legislator is of less importance.
I'm not sure Bernie or Biden can punch back at the caliber necessary either, but they've got their "crusty old lefty asshole" (which I mean as a positive) and "working class hero" personas to fall back on when they can't. A lot of people can't name a single thing about Warren besides the evident fact that she had a judgment failure when filling out a demographic form.
She seems like she'd be a better president than a lot of the other options, but a worse candidate.
The racism in the U.S. is only trumped by our sexism (see what I did there?). I'd love for Warren to win, but she's going to lose about every male voter who ever felt "talked down to" by a female teacher.
My thought as well. If Trump proved one thing, its that, pathetically, we are not ready for a female president.
I'm voting for Bernie simply because this is a primary, and you can vote for your preferred candidate. I often hear people saying that a candidate can't win, but I don't understand what that is important in a primary. You aren't betting on the winner, you are casting a vote in support of someone who most lines up with your ideals.
If he doesn't win, fantastic, I'll go with whoever the Dem ends up being, but in the meantime, I'll be supporting him.
This is a situation where I would love to see some pilots of ranked choice or instant-runoff voting. With a dozen candidates, there will be cases where the difference in my preferences is marginal. Of course I'd like to see a preferred candidate win, but in the current system, voters are, as you indicate, betting on nebulous electability factors. And because that's part of the candidates' strategic calculations, you get candidates who run much blander, more timid campaigns than their actual politics and platforms.
Be careful plugging instant runoff. I've seen compelling arguments that it'll still result in first-past-the-post situations. The 'right' way to do this if you really care about deriving the people's will from the ranked list is to use the condorcet method. Scroll down to the example about Tennessee's capital and it'll show you the difference, and the advantage of using Condorcet over other systems.
Best part is you're still just using a ranked list as the ballot, it's the same in the voting booth. It's how you count the votes that matters. Instant runoff is exploitable. Also worth noting that using this method makes gerrymandering into an impossible math problem - there's no way in hell to figure out where to draw the district lines.
Understood - both terms have been used to describe a bucket of different algorithms for counting and weighting. I agree Condorcet is probably the best method, but it's going to take work to explain how any of this works to the voting masses, establishing trust/security, and proving that it's legal and constitutional...
Indeed it will. If I have to settle for IRV, hey, it's better. Doesn't really stop the two party problem, but I'll take what I can get.
The two-party system is a byproduct of the Senatorial extra governing layer. I'm not against having a little extra hysteresis in the system to keep transitory, uninformed popular sentiment from propelling mistakes in democratic governance, but the U.S. Senate is a really archaic way to do that.
This is really bad. I voted for Bernie back then, but now all he's going to do is cause further infighting and help Trump (again...). Bernie got crushed last time and is now way too old at 78. He should be rallying behind
someone else like Tulsi Gabbard, if she chooses to runanyone else.You crossed out your opinion because someone bullied you on the internet by bombarding you with propaganda? Calling Gabbard an Islamophobe is about as honest/factual and constructive as calling Ilhan Omar an antisemite. It's a smear designed to shut down conversation.
No, I amended it because I don't know enough to refute it or not, and therefore I don't know enough about Tulsi to say she should be supported.
Also, replying to a comment is not "bullying". Please.
I really like Tulsi, but I really don't think she has a chance in hell. Bernie was able to get enough name recognition last time to do well because he was the only other option to Clinton. This time, there is already Sanders and Warren and then everyone else who is pretending to have the same politics as Bernie. The field is sadly too crowded for Tulsi to pull out a win.
It's better than 78yo Sanders running again. If not Tulsi, then Sanders should be backing someone up and not polluting the race when he doesn't have any chance of winning. This is really frustrating news, honestly, to hear that he's actually running again.
Oh come on, he has a chance. Certainly a better chance than most of the others in the race.
No he doesn't. It's going to end exactly the same as last time. He might get momentum, but he won't win, especially because he's 78 now, and then he's gonna give support to some candidate that is totally opposite from him. Sanders should be dedicating his efforts to help a candidate with a better chance.
I guess we'll see. I don't really think you can know the future, dude. He's not gonna drop out because some people say stuff like this, so WHY say it? It's just going to piss his supporters off and cause the very division that you seem so worried about.
I'm not saying I know the future (strawman). I'm saying it's INCREDIBLY unlikely that he will win, given what happened last time and his increased age. If enough people say something then it's possible he might get the message and drop out early. The only one causing division here is Sanders running once again. I am highly sure it's going to play out exactly as I laid out above.
I wouldn't say she supports either of those people. Just meeting with Asad doesn't mean she supports him. Meeting with Trump doesn't mean she is a Trump supporter.
Her being raised in a socially conservative household doesn't mean she hates gay people. She has stated that she doesn't think government has any business in the bedroom.
I like her because for the things I care most about, she supports. It seems like people are starting to try to change what the term progressive means. To me, progressive means things like supporting election reform, campaign finance reform, investing in infrastructure and health and education of our people. Basically Bernie or Tulsi if you look at their stated stances.
If you look at say... Kamala Harris's website, she doesn't even have an issues page. The media seems to keep trying to build her up as a front runner because she is a woman and because she is multi ethnic. She "REFLECTS WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOOKS LIKE DERRRRR". They are calling her a progressive prosecutor (Come on. What the hell was progressive about her as a prosecutor?) She's playing along with this. But she doesn't have a progressive vision for why she wants to be president.
This is why I like Bernie and Tulsi. They list out their vision for making America better and don't try to win by appealing to identity politics.
i would not categorize harris as progressive either and i am certainly not a fan of most identity politics but it's pretty wacky to take issue with people 'building up' kamala because she's a woman and multi-ethnic when there have been zero female presidents (which in a normal country would have changed with the 2016 election) and one who wasn't white (who has subsequently had many of his achievements either attacked, damaged, or rolled back) and then deride the idea that reflecting the party's sex and ethnic makeup in candidate options as a bad thing despite the fact that democrats need their minority coalition to win (and in fact bernie lost in part because he massively neglected reaching out to most minority voters on top of clinton's huge advantages with them)
also kamala is the presumptive front runner independent of that. she is very popular with just about everybody who's not a leftist, and she's generally polling better than bernie is.
It's in no way a bad thing that Kamala Harris is female or multi-ethnic. I just think it's a bad thing that her entire justification for running seems to boil down to "non-white, female, progressive". And she's not even progressive! She feels like Hillary Clinton 2.0.
Regarding polls, I just looked through ReaClear Politics. For the primary, Bernie polls higher than Harris. For the general election, in most polls against Trump, Bernie has polled higher.
nationally, sure, but not statewide. harris has been leading bernie in recent statewide polls which suggests that his national popularity does not translate to what actually matters, which is statewide votes.
It sounds like you’re describing Elizabeth Warren
I like a lot about Elizabeth Warren (although she really pissed me off last primary). However, I don't see her having as good of a chance against Trump as I would like. People who already like her may not care about the Native American thing, but it looks really bad to a lot of people. Hell, I like her and it looks really bad to me. It would be an anchor around her neck.
Ok fair, I don't really know much since I haven't kept up since ~2016. I just don't think Sanders should be running period.
I'm disappointed that she did the DNA test. Things like that just tell me she would get blown out in a general versus Trump. That stuff is like red meat to them. Claiming you are of Native American heritag because of a DNA test is widely considered by tribal members to be offensive, including the Cherokee.
If Bernie doesn't win, I'd love to see a Warren win, but I think the DNA test was a complete unforced error on her part.
I'm actually really glad to see she apologized. I wasn't aware she had! With that being the case, I am a lot less apprehensive of her than I was previously.
I've never heard of Tulsi Gabbard before this comment chain, but can we please stop using items like this in our evaluations?
The credibility of your entire assessment goes out the window because you've thrown something in the middle that quite literally means nothing. The world has plenty of terrible people endorsing pretty much any candidate.
i mean, it kinda does when she's literally seen as by far righters as basically their candidate, ready to be redpilled and converted. tulsi has attracted the support and endorsements of a number of far-right pundits and figures just on her rhetoric and policy positions because they're so similar to what far-righters want. it's not just david duke and it never has been since tulsi announced her candidacy
The Democrats lost because they didn't get what was going on. I'm still not sure they do. Trump won not because he was the right person for the job, but because he did get what was going on. People were very frustrated with the Washington Party. They voted against it.
At this time I couldn't tell you what's going on with voters. It's too early. But one thing that Bernie will do: His campaign has the chance to focus the frustrated voters and some of the candidates on what is going on this time. He's already gotten the attention of the Democrats. Now we'll see what the Republicans run on and see where they are now. They have a chance to abandon Trump. Will they? Wait and see.
Narrator: They don't.
Depends on Mueller I believe.
This is why I'm going to support him this time around, actually. Bernie was the only candidate on either side that was able to sincerely read the room. If you scroll up to his announcement email, its apparent that he's able to do so again.
The thing is, Bernie is the perfect candidate to take down Trump. Trump, I believe, will not be reelected by any stretch. He only barely managed to game the system the first time, and whats more, the entire reason he ran - the rollbacks and tax cuts - have already been implemented. With all the ill will he's cultivated and his low approval ratings throughout the duration of his term, there is absolutely no way he can cultivate his shadow majority a second time.
Sanders has taken Trump's rhetoric and facade and is running it honestly. Find me another candidate with the stones to honestly tear down our institution like he has. Trump has supplied the democratic party with an enormous stockpile of ammunition, and there's no one better than Sanders to fire it back at him, from policy to personal.
I have to agree. It's amazing how he motivated folks on 2016 and is now doing it all over again.
This time around I expect some very ugly things will happen. As far as the right-leaning people I know, Bernie is as dangerous as Hitler, which of course is the way many people on the left view Trump. A smart and very lucky middle candidate might wedge their way in, we'll see. Meanwhile, it will be interesting. I think Bernie will stay focused on Trump while his presumed Democratic opponents figure out their strategies. Hillary's strategy was total win-at-any-cost politics. The Republicans will be worse.
The whole Democratic Party will probably be branded as Democratic SOCIALISTS with all the derogatory imagery that label can stand. This one depends on the younger voters and the truly disenfranchised voting for Bernie, because the establishment stance is that the whole electorate is cattle, to be prodded and manipulated.
i genuinely hope they do this because it's worked really well in making leftism palatable to people that would otherwise reject it and it's probably why people like AOC are getting elected now. the "Socialist" boogeyman only works when people are actually afraid of its implementation and overwhelmingly, that's not the case anymore. maybe we'll even get an actually viable party that is also actually fucking center-left eventually if they keep it up!
Truth, on all levels. Really what it boils down to is if the democrats have realized that the middle class is suffering or not. If they do, they'll get elected, because Bernie is that voice that suburban america craves. If they don't it'll be close. The reason Clinton lost was because she catered to the minorities, the LGBTQ, the women, etc., so hard, that she lost sight of actually talking to America. All they need to do is NOT THAT.
They just seemed so hard set against Sanders for some reason. They're so firmly entrenched in their institution that it's killing their own voter base. The fact that the dude took the missing 30 from Clinton's 60% support on the last primary should be all they need to know, to know not to sabotage the guy this time around. "Grab Em By The Pussy" Trump has proved that you can put any label on anyone (including rapist!) and still get them elected, so all the dems need to do is stop sucking the establishment cock, acknowledge that the game is fundamentally different than it was 8 years ago, and put their support by the candidate that the people overwhelmingly, obviously want rather than the one the dollars decide to market.
(If you're interested in how the dems sabotaged Sanders, take a look at the screentime figures of him vs. Clinton during the primary. He was also on the bottom of the roster on the ballots. I learned secondhand that several young districts (I lived in a college town during the last election) had mild sabotage at the polls as well.)
It seems like Biden is gonna announce today at 3pm at an event at Penn. Not sure where else to post this but just want to share what I know. It's not unusual for him to be holding a "conversation with Joe Biden" event like this at Penn but this one is strictly closed to Penn students and staff unlike any past ones iirc. I guess if I see a bunch of TV cameras when I roll up it will be pretty evident.
Even in the face of the OP, I am vastly less impressed with Joe Biden than I am with Bernie Sanders. Biden is an intellectual fly-weight and the old saying applies to his policies: "what's good isn't original, and what's original isn't good."
He's a tireless Democratic Party foot-soldier with a made-for-TV backstory, but his politics are straight-down-the-antique-middle.
I'm not surprised. The speculation was Biden was waiting for Bernie (and in fact might only run if Bernie does in order to prevent Bernie from gaining the nomination).
I like Bernie Sanders. I like a lot of his positions. There is no way in Hell he would get elected, and even if he did, there is no way in Hell he would be able to get those policies implemented. America isn't ready for those ideas yet. We can't go from "screw you I've got mine" to "we are all one family" in a single presidency. We need baby steps.
Potentially. I think it's too early in the election cycle to be talking about meta-election strategy. In 2016, if the republicans had done meta-analysis about what America is ready for, they wouldn't have come up with Trump, they would have probably gone with Rubio. But people voted for who they supported, and when it came time for the actual election, their guy won.
"I like Bernie but I won't vote for him because enough other people don't like him therefore he can't win" was a huge issue for his campaign in 2016, and at the end of the day, our "safe candidate" lost anyways, because (in my relatively uninformed, and under-sampled opinion), no one was really "excited" to vote for Hillary. Obviously she had her strong base of democrats. But a lot of people voted for "not trump" and a lot of people just couldn't pull the trigger on her at all. Especially in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana. States where Bernie won delegates. Not to say that Bernie would have won against Trump. I'm just saying I think people are trying to play too much game theory instead of just voting for people that they think will be a good president.
The problem is, part of being a good president is having policies you can implement. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the core plank of your platform is "end all war now" if you have no way of achieving it, and unfortunately the political system is needed to achieve things.
As a libertarian who doesn't mind socialism, I feel like this election I'll be voting Democrat regardless of any other factors, or who wins the nomination. All of this constant, pointless, self-destructive bickering about who is the 'right' democrat is really starting to get on my nerves. I'll happily hear out every single candidate who wants to campaign for the nomination. What I won't be doing is wringing my hands and nitpicking all of them to death over meaningless non-issues from their past that have been blown way out of proportion. I'll let Bill explain that mindset since he does a better job than I could.
I don't really know what to think about Sanders for 2020. He's been in a very interesting position in the past two years, in that he has been used by the right and left alike as a cudgel with which to beat up Clinton. I suspect that if he were to become the democratic frontrunner he would be successfully subject to a great deal of character assassination he has so far avoided. And this is all independent of policy.
I'm also somewhat curious how interested the US body politic will be in a more significant change, after a few years of Trump's guidance. My general sense is that after eight years of more or less the status quo under Obama, those who have been less successful under it were interested in overturning the apple cart one way or another, making Sanders or Trump especially attractive candidates.
As a Muslim I could never support a de facto ISIS apologist. Sanders has never once transgressed the establishment from a foreign policy standpoint. His repetition of the co-opted Trump-Russian "collusion" meme is disingenuous, and his falling right in line on the Assad "gassing his own people" war rhetoric is downright evil. My personal preference for Sanders over Trump or Clinton is 0 points, though I generally prefer his fan base to theirs. Love and Light
What on earth do you mean by that?
Please elaborate on the ISIS apologist claim. You can't make such an inflammatory statement and provide zero context or support
cool yeah we should definitely vote for the guy who got blackmailed out of the race in 2016
I learned that during the 2016 election process
Oh no, I have no argument with you buddy, sorry about that!
I think Bernie Sanders got blackmailed out of the 2016 presidential race
You haven't explained why you think that though.
Maybe he means the DNC-rigged the primaries instead of blackmail.