Back in the 60s the Dixiecrats were a major component of the Democratic party. Civil Rights activists moved in and took the party over largely by voting in lock-step for anti-dixiecrat candidates....
Back in the 60s the Dixiecrats were a major component of the Democratic party. Civil Rights activists moved in and took the party over largely by voting in lock-step for anti-dixiecrat candidates. When Dixiecrats won they dusted themselves off and came back resolving to vote even harder to kick the Dixiecrats out. In between elections they continued agitating to make sure the worst of what they wanted to do didn't happen.
These people were literally out to lynch them. If anyone had a right to claim "This party isn't mine" I think they could have, but a spirit of solidarity kept them together and persistence had them continue fighting to win the long war.
You thought Bloomberg had the chops to defeat Trump, but neither of the remaining two front-runners? That's strange. Even from the other side of the Pacific, it's obvious Bloomberg was unlikely to...
You thought Bloomberg had the chops to defeat Trump, but neither of the remaining two front-runners? That's strange. Even from the other side of the Pacific, it's obvious Bloomberg was unlikely to attract enough votes to defeat Trump. He was never going to win a general election.
I think his point is that Bernie could beat Trump, but Biden can't and Biden is more likely to win the primary now that Bloomberg has dropped out and endorsed him. That's my belief anyway.
I think his point is that Bernie could beat Trump, but Biden can't and Biden is more likely to win the primary now that Bloomberg has dropped out and endorsed him. That's my belief anyway.
Oh. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment of Sanders' and Biden's chances of beating Trump, but I understand what @wundumguy was saying.
Oh. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment of Sanders' and Biden's chances of beating Trump, but I understand what @wundumguy was saying.
I wonder what (if anything) will replace campaigning in his case, and whether Bernie being all in on campaigning is just not effective anymore. I also wonder if the debates might be helping him...
This tells me that voters may not really be guided by traditional campaigning anymore. Biden may not need to hustle around the country exhausting his old ass and spending millions of dollars in ads to win.
I wonder what (if anything) will replace campaigning in his case, and whether Bernie being all in on campaigning is just not effective anymore. I also wonder if the debates might be helping him due to the moderators being, well, 'moderate' (supportive of him).
If you think you're having a bad day, you aren't having as near a bad one as the guy who spent Half a Billion on advertising for a vanity run for the presidency, only to get pantsed on stage of a...
If you think you're having a bad day, you aren't having as near a bad one as the guy who spent Half a Billion on advertising for a vanity run for the presidency, only to get pantsed on stage of a debate he bought his way into, and for his massive advertising budget to get him peanuts compared to the person who's campaign he brought back from the dead because the DNC hit the panic button on his proving night for winning the whole thing. At least you are not that guy.
This is like .8% of his net worth. I’ve probably donated close to 1% of my net worth between Sanders and Warren this season so, in relative terms, I’m having a slightly worse day.
you aren't having as near a bad one as the guy who spent Half a Billion on advertising for a vanity run for the presidency
This is like .8% of his net worth. I’ve probably donated close to 1% of my net worth between Sanders and Warren this season so, in relative terms, I’m having a slightly worse day.
The only upside is that he's paying the salaries of practically the entire sphere of political workers at 150% the usual rates on behalf of the democrats. Bad news is those people are now working...
The only upside is that he's paying the salaries of practically the entire sphere of political workers at 150% the usual rates on behalf of the democrats. Bad news is those people are now working for Biden, who just went from having next to no staff to a mega-staff of the best people with the most data-driven apparatus.
Bloomberg said he's going to keep them all busy until the election in November, so he's effectively self-funding the entire democratic party at this point, whoever the nominee is.
I'm amazed they could push Biden from zero to hero so fast. That has got to be the fastest and most dramatic turnaround in American politics in generations.
I'd rather he focus it downticket. Because of him, they will be hurting for local talent. Of course, having one guy deciding to set the tone for the entire party across the nation is. . .very...
I'd rather he focus it downticket. Because of him, they will be hurting for local talent.
Of course, having one guy deciding to set the tone for the entire party across the nation is. . .very problematic to say the least. When the Republicans let themselves get bought out by the Koch Brothers at least there were TWO of them!
It seems like dramatic news, but on the other hand, didn't he start out as the front runner? I guess the lesson is that Iowa and New Hampshire really don't matter that much?
It seems like dramatic news, but on the other hand, didn't he start out as the front runner?
I guess the lesson is that Iowa and New Hampshire really don't matter that much?
He was barely hanging on to double digits in many places last week. The dropouts are what reversed this trend, almost overnight. The race has changed now into an establishment vs progressive all...
He was barely hanging on to double digits in many places last week. The dropouts are what reversed this trend, almost overnight. The race has changed now into an establishment vs progressive all out war.
I thought it was interesting that many Biden supporters decided at the last minute. Maybe establishment voters would have consolidated around another mainstream candidate if party leaders had...
I thought it was interesting that many Biden supporters decided at the last minute. Maybe establishment voters would have consolidated around another mainstream candidate if party leaders had chosen to support someone else?
Those dropouts/endorsements came after SC though. Biden proved his SC firewall claim without those endorsements and catalyzed the party to close ranks around him after a decisive win among the...
Those dropouts/endorsements came after SC though. Biden proved his SC firewall claim without those endorsements and catalyzed the party to close ranks around him after a decisive win among the most crucial voting bloc.
So if the establishment candidates, who had the majority of the vote, hadn't consolidated one one candidate, giving him the majority of the vote, then that candidate wouldn't have the majority of...
So if the establishment candidates, who had the majority of the vote, hadn't consolidated one one candidate, giving him the majority of the vote, then that candidate wouldn't have the majority of the vote?
Is this really a war now? It seems to me more like democracy.
Biden was never far enough in the toilet to make this a surprise. It looked bad for him because three other candidates were splitting the moderate vote. When they bailed, their supporters flocked...
Biden was never far enough in the toilet to make this a surprise. It looked bad for him because three other candidates were splitting the moderate vote. When they bailed, their supporters flocked to Biden.
Good riddance. He spent a fuckton of money and it got him nothing. We don't need people like him running our country. But this election is going to end up with Biden vs. Trump. The DNC won't let...
Good riddance. He spent a fuckton of money and it got him nothing. We don't need people like him running our country.
But this election is going to end up with Biden vs. Trump. The DNC won't let it happen any other way.
U.S. politics is so messed up and controlled by so few that we can't even have a fair primaries.
We need more active, serious political parties in play. Trouble is, in order for that to really happen, a lot of changes need to be made in how we vote, and there's no way in hell those changes...
We need more active, serious political parties in play. Trouble is, in order for that to really happen, a lot of changes need to be made in how we vote, and there's no way in hell those changes are going to come from the DNC or the RNC, as it'll cost them their lock on the election process.
Right now I'd wager that people are pissed enough at both major parties that a third party run wouldn't play out the way everyone is always saying it will - sabotaging the democrats and bolstering the republicans. There's a ~15% size chunk of republicans that are libertarian minded progressives and they can most definitely be swayed away from Trump. If someone can get them on board on the same ticket with the ~30% chunk of democratic progressives that represent Bernie's core, it might be possible to make a third party run. If the DNC steals this cycle from Bernie they might just be pissed off enough to break ranks with the DNC.
It's still a hell of a long shot. The media won't cover third parties, they won't be represented in debates, and the financial and legal obligations that come with putting a party together are staggering, it's an uphill battle. The only serious third party in the US right now is the libertarian party, and I only say that because they alone are on the ballot in all fifty states and have done that consistently. I wouldn't call them a true threat or say they perform well, they are still fringe at best in American politics. Same with the Greens who are probably the next in line behind the LP.
I don't think you can do this sort of thing clean with an existing party. The narratives are already against them, people already have knee-jerk reactions to labels like 'libertarian' and 'green' and 'socialist'. It'd have to be new to have a shot - call it a 'reform' party or somesuch. You'd need a Bloomberg to bankroll it, grassroots at least the level of Sanders to make it happen, and someone infinitely more charismatic than anyone currently running to sell it.
The platform itself would have to look a lot like Yang/Bernie - pragmatic, data driven, big goals meant to reform American capitalism into something that works better.
What's worse, you also need to float a shit-ton of senators, representatives, and governors on that same platform, and they need to win as well. Electing a single president on a third party ticket is just going to wind up in gridlock unless he's got a lot of friends in the legislative branch and around the country.
If you could get something like that in power even for one term, they could push through the major reforms that would level the field for other parties - term limits, democracy dollars, ranked choice/condorcet voting, possibly some electoral college reforms, high standards for voting systems, that sort of thing.
I don't see it happening. Trump is divisive enough. Biden is not. I see no one able to lead a reform ticket. I see no one willing to fund the hundreds of millions it'd take.
For Americans to vote third party in large numbers, they've got to hate the other options and want to vote third party out of pure spite, to punish the other two.
A multi-party system will not work out like you hope. The fact that you'd be hoping for a libertarian/socialist alliance is proof of this. Those two groups disagree on far to much to actually...
We need more active, serious political parties in play.
A multi-party system will not work out like you hope. The fact that you'd be hoping for a libertarian/socialist alliance is proof of this. Those two groups disagree on far to much to actually engage in collective action together. There is a well documented reason why single-member districts with FPTP system's always converge at two parties. Whoever has a message that resonates with the median voter wins. Anyone too far from the median is destined to fail. Them's just the breaks. It's not just a problem of marketing, it's literally, structurally, a non-viable strategy from a game-theory standpoint.
It also assumes a style of engagement with politics that is actually fairly unusual. See my post here. You think most people vote like group 1, but they don't. This is a vanishingly small part of the electorate. Most people vote like group 2. Group 1's only shot at moving things in any direction is if they advance a message hard enough that it breaks through to group 2. If you fracture the system across multiple parties then all you're doing is diluting your ability to actually accomplish any goals once in office. Rather than having a handful of candidates who owe support to a set of constituencies, you have a bunch of constituencies who are loyal only to their most rabid base. This discourages working with each other to get anything done and is a recipe for a highly dysfunctional political system.
Many parliamentary systems that are proportional work out this way. Just completely incapable of doing anything as a group, allowing which ever faction can command a rabidly loyal minority to run away with the whole thing. Just look at how the elections in Israel have been going for a perfect example of this.
As if I wasn't depressed enough already. :P What's the solution to this quagmire called government then? How do we make it about building common ground rather than scoring points on the other...
As if I wasn't depressed enough already. :P
What's the solution to this quagmire called government then? How do we make it about building common ground rather than scoring points on the other team? Is that even a possibility when your actors are, effectively, apes with a tribal mentality predisposed to blame everything on tribes they don't feel a part of?
We should always rally around the best available option even if they aren't the best possible option. Idealists staying home because the nominated candidate isn't their ideal candidate makes it...
We should always rally around the best available option even if they aren't the best possible option. Idealists staying home because the nominated candidate isn't their ideal candidate makes it easy for authoritarians running on fear-based campaigns like Trump and Boris Johnson to win.
One day we will be those "older people" who turn out to elections in the largest numbers, and the candidates who get nominated then will reflect that.
It's always going to be messy, part of it is just accepting that this is the nature of having tribal apes trying to accomplish things collectively. As for the government, I'd say most of it comes...
It's always going to be messy, part of it is just accepting that this is the nature of having tribal apes trying to accomplish things collectively.
As for the government, I'd say most of it comes down to just having trusted operators to do things. One of the big problems is the media doesn't actually talk about policy and there aren't many outlets that aim policy discussions at laymen. Even if we had one, it would quickly get fucked by business interests lobbying it apart. Most of the failures of electoralism we have are really failures of organization. We don't have unions or really any people-powered interest groups anymore and the result is that politicians only ever get input on policy from concerted lobbyists instead of blocks of voters.
That implies there is some set of agreed upon "good rules" that newbies aren't following. But this is just a fundamental facet of how politics between factions works and has worked since forever.
Eternal september, in a nutshell.
That implies there is some set of agreed upon "good rules" that newbies aren't following. But this is just a fundamental facet of how politics between factions works and has worked since forever.
I firmly believe in the existence of those good rules, though perhaps we've got a lot of work to do discovering what they are and how to wield them effectively, especially at scale. The fact that...
I firmly believe in the existence of those good rules, though perhaps we've got a lot of work to do discovering what they are and how to wield them effectively, especially at scale.
The fact that the problem has existed as long as groups of people have existed doesn't really change that. I don't think most people even think about it like this or try to find a way to protect the integrity of the conversation without regard for the content of the conversation.
It's entropy, and I'm pretty sure it can't be killed or beaten - but if we're clever enough we might find out how to make it into a friend rather than an enemy. I'd even settle for frenemy.
If that were true, how did Trump, Mcconnell, or any other of the hard-right folks get elected? They sure as hell don't represent a median.
FPTP system's always converge at two parties.
Then dismantle FPTP. Good luck getting the DNC or GOP to do so. Philadelphia was able to oust a Republican in favor of a third party by siphoning a few voters from the Democrats. We don't need to overcome FPTP forever..Just long enough to dismantle it.
Whoever has a message that resonates with the median voter wins. Anyone too far from the median is destined to fail. Them's just the breaks. It's not just a problem of marketing, it's literally, structurally, a non-viable strategy from a game-theory standpoint.
If that were true, how did Trump, Mcconnell, or any other of the hard-right folks get elected? They sure as hell don't represent a median.
Sadly, they do. It’s not the median national voter, it’s the median voter per district. So congress, due to Gerrymandering, has lots of districts where the median voter is batcrap crazy. The...
Sadly, they do. It’s not the median national voter, it’s the median voter per district. So congress, due to Gerrymandering, has lots of districts where the median voter is batcrap crazy. The apportioning of electoral votes also weights highly conservative votes more heavily and skews the median.
On the state and national level it’s also true because of our abysmal voter participation. The median voter isn’t the median person. They’re way older, richer, and more tribalistic.
Stacked/ranked voting would go a long way to solving these problems. I agree, but it's more than that. They need to be able to vote for a third party without sacrificing their vote to a candidate...
Stacked/ranked voting would go a long way to solving these problems.
For Americans to vote third party in large numbers, they've got to hate the other options and want to vote third party out of pure spite, to punish the other two.
I agree, but it's more than that. They need to be able to vote for a third party without sacrificing their vote to a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning.
I'd vote for a third party candidate in theory, but, for me, I'm voting for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is now (since Bloomberg is out). I want Trump out more than anything and I don't want to throw my vote behind a candidate that has a smaller chance of winning than the DNC's blessed candidate (since they get all the money and support). That's basically a wasted vote since third parties have no chance in the current system.
Stacked ranking means I can vote for someone who I agree with more and not have my vote effectively wasted.
Sometimes I wonder if the fundamental mistake we're making here is voting for people or parties rather than on issues and on the plans to tackle those issues. Does it really matter who is the...
Sometimes I wonder if the fundamental mistake we're making here is voting for people or parties rather than on issues and on the plans to tackle those issues. Does it really matter who is the figurehead or who takes the credit? Isn't this more about solving problems?
Time was you had to send a representative to reflect your interests. We certainly have the technology now to weigh in globally in real time on any issue from anywhere in the world. We haven't tamed it yet, but it's here. There's work to be done sorting the wheat/expert takes from the chaff/circlejerk in online conversation, but that does not seem to be an insurmountable problem. That holds out the possibility of diminishing or even eliminating the importance of the representative or the party.
I don't think the DNC has as much control over the situation as you think. So far, they haven't really done anything. Them stealing the nomination would be using superdelegates to force through...
But this election is going to end up with Biden vs. Trump. The DNC won't let it happen any other way.
I don't think the DNC has as much control over the situation as you think. So far, they haven't really done anything. Them stealing the nomination would be using superdelegates to force through Biden in a contested convention. With Biden now the only remaining moderate candidate, he will probably go to the convention with a legitimate delegate majority and take the nomination in the first round of voting, without the involvement of superdelegates.
Simple answer: The DNC insiders made a few phone calls to get the field to narrow with a lot of Biden endorsements. Amy and Pete were convinced to drop and endorse Biden. Warren gets to stay in...
Simple answer: The DNC insiders made a few phone calls to get the field to narrow with a lot of Biden endorsements. Amy and Pete were convinced to drop and endorse Biden. Warren gets to stay in because she's got the largest bloc of Bernie voters tied up in her base, and they can't have those going to Bernie. Consolidate the anti-Bernie vote, split the Bernie vote. Business as usual for the DNC, it should surprise no one.
Nobody orders Bloomberg to do anything, but he's scared shitless of what Bernie represents (as are most wealthy people/corporations), so he'll spend whatever it takes to shut Bernie down. He wanted to do it himself, but his numbers aren't there and Warren eviscerated him, so the next best way to wipe Bernie out is to back the frontrunner.
Please provide some proof of this "decree" or bribes/coercion. If you can't, don't push unsubstantiated conspiracy theories while making them sound like they're facts. Speculation is fine, but...
Exemplary
Please provide some proof of this "decree" or bribes/coercion. If you can't, don't push unsubstantiated conspiracy theories while making them sound like they're facts. Speculation is fine, but make it clear that's what you're doing. All of these candidates were doing terribly and had no chance, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy behind it.
I don't want to have to start removing posts, but I'm not going to let this site turn into another crazy "Sanders/Yang are being oppressed by the shadowy establishment!" circlejerk because people get upset when internet hype gets crushed by reality.
Honest question: Do you really think that all of this happened organically? That Amy and Pete just decided to drop out of the goodness of their hearts and declare their love for Biden? I find that...
Honest question: Do you really think that all of this happened organically? That Amy and Pete just decided to drop out of the goodness of their hearts and declare their love for Biden?
I find that impossible to believe. Phone calls were made, cabinet positions were handed out, possibly even hints at VP. That kind of dealmaking is business as usual in politics. I think the threat to the centrally-aligned democrats in the party that Bernie represents was taken seriously and was the impetus for this entire shakeup.
We know Obama called Pete. That's the only real 'evidence' for this so far. I'm sure we'll hear plenty of rumors, and if Biden wins I'll be looking intently at his cabinet picks. What really happened here is only going to be known to the people directly involved - but there are plenty of people including me who saw something like this coming down the pipe. It was the only play the DNC had to make. It's just politics, not rocket science.
I will edit the decree bit out of my post since it's being seen as gospel rather than speculation.
It doesn't take a conspiracy to get candidates to drop out after repeatedly losing horribly. Continuing to run when you obviously have no chance is just a waste of everyone's time, money, and...
It doesn't take a conspiracy to get candidates to drop out after repeatedly losing horribly. Continuing to run when you obviously have no chance is just a waste of everyone's time, money, and enthusiasm that could be better invested in someone that can actually win.
I agree with that completely, and Yang dropped out at the precise right time for me to believe that was his motivation. The rest of them, however, sticking around just until the day before super...
I agree with that completely, and Yang dropped out at the precise right time for me to believe that was his motivation.
The rest of them, however, sticking around just until the day before super tuesday when they haven't got a shot strikes me as holding out for a better deal from the party or perhaps just narcissism. Maybe that's not a charitable interpretation, but this is politics, and I've no charity left for it.
Actually, that's a good point I hadn't considered. Breaking late like that made it much more impactful. Perhaps I'm not giving the party leads enough credit for their strategy.
Actually, that's a good point I hadn't considered. Breaking late like that made it much more impactful. Perhaps I'm not giving the party leads enough credit for their strategy.
There feels like an obvious difference between naturally dropping out and literally every establishment candidate dropping out within four days of one another and then endorsing/stumping for the...
There feels like an obvious difference between naturally dropping out and literally every establishment candidate dropping out within four days of one another and then endorsing/stumping for the remaining establishment candidate in Texas, the make-or-break state that Biden was suffering in.
As I said in my comment a little bit above, it isn't a conspiracy, it's downright boring political dealmaking, with some solid evidence (like the Obama phone call) behind it. I'm curious why you think a bland backroom deal between ideologically-similar candidates is even noteworthy enough to count as a Bernie Bro/Yang Gang “conspiracy”?
Sorry, I'm not going to comment any more about it (and already wish I hadn't said as much as I did). I have no interest in political arguments, and wouldn't even read them if I didn't have to...
Sorry, I'm not going to comment any more about it (and already wish I hadn't said as much as I did). I have no interest in political arguments, and wouldn't even read them if I didn't have to moderate them.
Probably because by tomorrow that will be the narrative in every single thread about this on every site except tildes. We need to avoid falling into those kinds of traps. Sticking to facts is as...
Probably because by tomorrow that will be the narrative in every single thread about this on every site except tildes. We need to avoid falling into those kinds of traps. Sticking to facts is as good a way as any to aim higher.
It doesn't really matter, because we don't have proof either way. That's what makes it unsubstantiated. It's just a best practice to qualify statements as speculation when they are.
Honest question: Do you really think that all of this happened organically?
It doesn't really matter, because we don't have proof either way. That's what makes it unsubstantiated. It's just a best practice to qualify statements as speculation when they are.
I see. So Bernie is too lefty and independent for the rest of the DNC? Cause for me, as a foreigner, the DNC looks more like what I'd call "center", "center-right", or maybe even "moderate right".
I see. So Bernie is too lefty and independent for the rest of the DNC? Cause for me, as a foreigner, the DNC looks more like what I'd call "center", "center-right", or maybe even "moderate right".
You have to remember that both the DNC and RNC are bought and paid for by America's favorite children - the multinational corporations that have run roughshod over the world with impunity for the...
You have to remember that both the DNC and RNC are bought and paid for by America's favorite children - the multinational corporations that have run roughshod over the world with impunity for the last century. They pay America well for that privilege every election season. Whatever lines the parties and candidates spout, there's still a lot of backroom dealing going on (as Biden just showed), and that's the greater part of the process. Voting in America has become just another episode of bread and circuses.
American politics is also pretty damn weird in general. Maybe it's because we got into this democracy business early and the system is just so damn old. There's a lot of baggage, like caucuses and the electoral college. There's also the 'red scare' era which has poisoned the well on any conversations that stray away from capitalistic ideologies. Young people now don't remember hiding under desks at school for nuclear bomb drills, or fighting world wars, or when the US government was hunting down and rounding up and jailing communist sympathizers. Old people still vote from that worldview here all the time. It might even be what keeps them voting.
Bernie is pushing for real reforms and is not afraid of those conversations. He's closer to the mainstream outside the USA, but inside the USA he's basically an anti-capitalist boogeyman to the uninformed (aka normal) voter. Older people get scared by expecting their taxes to skyrocket to pay for it all, younger people walk away from the system in disgust and don't vote because they can't find any real representation.
Our first past the post voting system locks us in to two parties as a mathematical consequence of how that system operates. A third party would only replace one of the others, not become a long term third option - which is what we need, someone who can adopt the sane middle ground between two ideological battlefields that don't represent reality.
We know for a fact that Obama had a phone call with Buttigieg just before he bowed out. It's a very normal inside-baseball thing to do; an almost-boring example of routine backroom dealing to...
We know for a fact that Obama had a phone call with Buttigieg just before he bowed out. It's a very normal inside-baseball thing to do; an almost-boring example of routine backroom dealing to consolidate behind the candidate the establishment wants more. No one made them; it's just an easy thing to argue for. Buttigeig was definitely going to get hit hard on Super Tuesday, with downright pathetic poll numbers and an ability to inspire no one who actually listens to the insipid drivel his entire candidacy was based on, so they politely laid out the options: ‘you have no bargaining chip here besides your high-tier ability to fundraise, and that will disappear after Tuesday. Stay on the party's good side, drop out now before you get embarrassed, endorse Biden, and we'll back you when it's Your Turn™/get you a nice job inside a Biden administration.’ It's just the obvious correct choice for the low-polling moderates.
Also, unlike the RNC, the DNC elites actually do usually keep their word—you can see generations of this backroom dealing play out every year—so it's a convincing argument when you're a soulless corporate power-chaser.
Exactly this. I'll be curious to see what Bernie's response is. At least now we have a more honest race with a clear focus - a wave of new progressive policies, or a return to the pre-Trump mentality.
Exactly this.
I'll be curious to see what Bernie's response is. At least now we have a more honest race with a clear focus - a wave of new progressive policies, or a return to the pre-Trump mentality.
I haven't seen one. I'm sure we're a day away from rampant claims about favoritism and leaks on 4chan and a whirlwind of other nonsense related to this. They can't just 'order' people around, but...
I haven't seen one. I'm sure we're a day away from rampant claims about favoritism and leaks on 4chan and a whirlwind of other nonsense related to this.
They can't just 'order' people around, but they can keep their foot on the scale. Remember that once elected you have to work with these people to remain in power, so you have an ongoing relationship with them that last long after elections are over. Nobody without an axe to grind is going to go against that and make their terms more difficult than they have to be.
It's just a tribal mentality in the end. At some point, you have to put the party ahead of the individual because you can't function without the support of that party in our current system. Those parties depend for their financing on corporations, and so corporations will set the agenda.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite scenes from a movie everyone should see. It's a dim world view, but it seems to me the closest to the truth. :/
DNC believes that Biden plays the best to the country, so once that proves out in SC, they ask the other candidates very nicely to consolidate their efforts behind Biden to try and lock out Sanders.
DNC believes that Biden plays the best to the country, so once that proves out in SC, they ask the other candidates very nicely to consolidate their efforts behind Biden to try and lock out Sanders.
Good. He can now direct his resources to someone with an actual chance of defeating Trump. If he doesn't spend at least as much on the Democrats' chosen candidate as he did on himself, then this...
“I entered the race for president to defeat Donald Trump, and today, I am leaving the race for the same reason: to defeat Donald Trump,” he said
Good. He can now direct his resources to someone with an actual chance of defeating Trump. If he doesn't spend at least as much on the Democrats' chosen candidate as he did on himself, then this was just a vanity run.
I guess it's really gonna be four more years of Trump, huh
I used to ignorantly say that both parties are the same. Objectively, they are not. But the spirit of that claim is true - neither party is mine.
Back in the 60s the Dixiecrats were a major component of the Democratic party. Civil Rights activists moved in and took the party over largely by voting in lock-step for anti-dixiecrat candidates. When Dixiecrats won they dusted themselves off and came back resolving to vote even harder to kick the Dixiecrats out. In between elections they continued agitating to make sure the worst of what they wanted to do didn't happen.
These people were literally out to lynch them. If anyone had a right to claim "This party isn't mine" I think they could have, but a spirit of solidarity kept them together and persistence had them continue fighting to win the long war.
You thought Bloomberg had the chops to defeat Trump, but neither of the remaining two front-runners? That's strange. Even from the other side of the Pacific, it's obvious Bloomberg was unlikely to attract enough votes to defeat Trump. He was never going to win a general election.
I think his point is that Bernie could beat Trump, but Biden can't and Biden is more likely to win the primary now that Bloomberg has dropped out and endorsed him. That's my belief anyway.
Oh. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment of Sanders' and Biden's chances of beating Trump, but I understand what @wundumguy was saying.
Correct
I bet it's just because Biden has name recognition from eight years with Obama
I wonder what (if anything) will replace campaigning in his case, and whether Bernie being all in on campaigning is just not effective anymore. I also wonder if the debates might be helping him due to the moderators being, well, 'moderate' (supportive of him).
If you think you're having a bad day, you aren't having as near a bad one as the guy who spent Half a Billion on advertising for a vanity run for the presidency, only to get pantsed on stage of a debate he bought his way into, and for his massive advertising budget to get him peanuts compared to the person who's campaign he brought back from the dead because the DNC hit the panic button on his proving night for winning the whole thing. At least you are not that guy.
This is like .8% of his net worth. I’ve probably donated close to 1% of my net worth between Sanders and Warren this season so, in relative terms, I’m having a slightly worse day.
The only upside is that he's paying the salaries of practically the entire sphere of political workers at 150% the usual rates on behalf of the democrats. Bad news is those people are now working for Biden, who just went from having next to no staff to a mega-staff of the best people with the most data-driven apparatus.
Bloomberg said he's going to keep them all busy until the election in November, so he's effectively self-funding the entire democratic party at this point, whoever the nominee is.
I'm amazed they could push Biden from zero to hero so fast. That has got to be the fastest and most dramatic turnaround in American politics in generations.
I'm interested to see if they repurpose some of the weird social-media stuff he's been doing to start supporting Biden now instead.
I'd rather he focus it downticket. Because of him, they will be hurting for local talent.
Of course, having one guy deciding to set the tone for the entire party across the nation is. . .very problematic to say the least. When the Republicans let themselves get bought out by the Koch Brothers at least there were TWO of them!
It seems like dramatic news, but on the other hand, didn't he start out as the front runner?
I guess the lesson is that Iowa and New Hampshire really don't matter that much?
He was barely hanging on to double digits in many places last week. The dropouts are what reversed this trend, almost overnight. The race has changed now into an establishment vs progressive all out war.
I thought it was interesting that many Biden supporters decided at the last minute. Maybe establishment voters would have consolidated around another mainstream candidate if party leaders had chosen to support someone else?
Those dropouts/endorsements came after SC though. Biden proved his SC firewall claim without those endorsements and catalyzed the party to close ranks around him after a decisive win among the most crucial voting bloc.
So if the establishment candidates, who had the majority of the vote, hadn't consolidated one one candidate, giving him the majority of the vote, then that candidate wouldn't have the majority of the vote?
Is this really a war now? It seems to me more like democracy.
I mean Bill Clinton lost those primaries (especially the Iowa one) in 1992 and yet he went on to become the nominee anyways. It's not unheard of.
Biden was never far enough in the toilet to make this a surprise. It looked bad for him because three other candidates were splitting the moderate vote. When they bailed, their supporters flocked to Biden.
I think he'll have plenty more better days than I could ever imagine having.
Good riddance. He spent a fuckton of money and it got him nothing. We don't need people like him running our country.
But this election is going to end up with Biden vs. Trump. The DNC won't let it happen any other way.
U.S. politics is so messed up and controlled by so few that we can't even have a fair primaries.
We need more active, serious political parties in play. Trouble is, in order for that to really happen, a lot of changes need to be made in how we vote, and there's no way in hell those changes are going to come from the DNC or the RNC, as it'll cost them their lock on the election process.
Right now I'd wager that people are pissed enough at both major parties that a third party run wouldn't play out the way everyone is always saying it will - sabotaging the democrats and bolstering the republicans. There's a ~15% size chunk of republicans that are libertarian minded progressives and they can most definitely be swayed away from Trump. If someone can get them on board on the same ticket with the ~30% chunk of democratic progressives that represent Bernie's core, it might be possible to make a third party run. If the DNC steals this cycle from Bernie they might just be pissed off enough to break ranks with the DNC.
It's still a hell of a long shot. The media won't cover third parties, they won't be represented in debates, and the financial and legal obligations that come with putting a party together are staggering, it's an uphill battle. The only serious third party in the US right now is the libertarian party, and I only say that because they alone are on the ballot in all fifty states and have done that consistently. I wouldn't call them a true threat or say they perform well, they are still fringe at best in American politics. Same with the Greens who are probably the next in line behind the LP.
I don't think you can do this sort of thing clean with an existing party. The narratives are already against them, people already have knee-jerk reactions to labels like 'libertarian' and 'green' and 'socialist'. It'd have to be new to have a shot - call it a 'reform' party or somesuch. You'd need a Bloomberg to bankroll it, grassroots at least the level of Sanders to make it happen, and someone infinitely more charismatic than anyone currently running to sell it.
The platform itself would have to look a lot like Yang/Bernie - pragmatic, data driven, big goals meant to reform American capitalism into something that works better.
What's worse, you also need to float a shit-ton of senators, representatives, and governors on that same platform, and they need to win as well. Electing a single president on a third party ticket is just going to wind up in gridlock unless he's got a lot of friends in the legislative branch and around the country.
If you could get something like that in power even for one term, they could push through the major reforms that would level the field for other parties - term limits, democracy dollars, ranked choice/condorcet voting, possibly some electoral college reforms, high standards for voting systems, that sort of thing.
I don't see it happening. Trump is divisive enough. Biden is not. I see no one able to lead a reform ticket. I see no one willing to fund the hundreds of millions it'd take.
For Americans to vote third party in large numbers, they've got to hate the other options and want to vote third party out of pure spite, to punish the other two.
A multi-party system will not work out like you hope. The fact that you'd be hoping for a libertarian/socialist alliance is proof of this. Those two groups disagree on far to much to actually engage in collective action together. There is a well documented reason why single-member districts with FPTP system's always converge at two parties. Whoever has a message that resonates with the median voter wins. Anyone too far from the median is destined to fail. Them's just the breaks. It's not just a problem of marketing, it's literally, structurally, a non-viable strategy from a game-theory standpoint.
It also assumes a style of engagement with politics that is actually fairly unusual. See my post here. You think most people vote like group 1, but they don't. This is a vanishingly small part of the electorate. Most people vote like group 2. Group 1's only shot at moving things in any direction is if they advance a message hard enough that it breaks through to group 2. If you fracture the system across multiple parties then all you're doing is diluting your ability to actually accomplish any goals once in office. Rather than having a handful of candidates who owe support to a set of constituencies, you have a bunch of constituencies who are loyal only to their most rabid base. This discourages working with each other to get anything done and is a recipe for a highly dysfunctional political system.
Many parliamentary systems that are proportional work out this way. Just completely incapable of doing anything as a group, allowing which ever faction can command a rabidly loyal minority to run away with the whole thing. Just look at how the elections in Israel have been going for a perfect example of this.
As if I wasn't depressed enough already. :P
What's the solution to this quagmire called government then? How do we make it about building common ground rather than scoring points on the other team? Is that even a possibility when your actors are, effectively, apes with a tribal mentality predisposed to blame everything on tribes they don't feel a part of?
We should always rally around the best available option even if they aren't the best possible option. Idealists staying home because the nominated candidate isn't their ideal candidate makes it easy for authoritarians running on fear-based campaigns like Trump and Boris Johnson to win.
One day we will be those "older people" who turn out to elections in the largest numbers, and the candidates who get nominated then will reflect that.
It's always going to be messy, part of it is just accepting that this is the nature of having tribal apes trying to accomplish things collectively.
As for the government, I'd say most of it comes down to just having trusted operators to do things. One of the big problems is the media doesn't actually talk about policy and there aren't many outlets that aim policy discussions at laymen. Even if we had one, it would quickly get fucked by business interests lobbying it apart. Most of the failures of electoralism we have are really failures of organization. We don't have unions or really any people-powered interest groups anymore and the result is that politicians only ever get input on policy from concerted lobbyists instead of blocks of voters.
Eternal september, in a nutshell.
That implies there is some set of agreed upon "good rules" that newbies aren't following. But this is just a fundamental facet of how politics between factions works and has worked since forever.
I firmly believe in the existence of those good rules, though perhaps we've got a lot of work to do discovering what they are and how to wield them effectively, especially at scale.
The fact that the problem has existed as long as groups of people have existed doesn't really change that. I don't think most people even think about it like this or try to find a way to protect the integrity of the conversation without regard for the content of the conversation.
It's entropy, and I'm pretty sure it can't be killed or beaten - but if we're clever enough we might find out how to make it into a friend rather than an enemy. I'd even settle for frenemy.
If that were true, how did Trump, Mcconnell, or any other of the hard-right folks get elected? They sure as hell don't represent a median.
Sadly, they do. It’s not the median national voter, it’s the median voter per district. So congress, due to Gerrymandering, has lots of districts where the median voter is batcrap crazy. The apportioning of electoral votes also weights highly conservative votes more heavily and skews the median.
On the state and national level it’s also true because of our abysmal voter participation. The median voter isn’t the median person. They’re way older, richer, and more tribalistic.
Stacked/ranked voting would go a long way to solving these problems.
I agree, but it's more than that. They need to be able to vote for a third party without sacrificing their vote to a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning.
I'd vote for a third party candidate in theory, but, for me, I'm voting for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is now (since Bloomberg is out). I want Trump out more than anything and I don't want to throw my vote behind a candidate that has a smaller chance of winning than the DNC's blessed candidate (since they get all the money and support). That's basically a wasted vote since third parties have no chance in the current system.
Stacked ranking means I can vote for someone who I agree with more and not have my vote effectively wasted.
Sometimes I wonder if the fundamental mistake we're making here is voting for people or parties rather than on issues and on the plans to tackle those issues. Does it really matter who is the figurehead or who takes the credit? Isn't this more about solving problems?
Time was you had to send a representative to reflect your interests. We certainly have the technology now to weigh in globally in real time on any issue from anywhere in the world. We haven't tamed it yet, but it's here. There's work to be done sorting the wheat/expert takes from the chaff/circlejerk in online conversation, but that does not seem to be an insurmountable problem. That holds out the possibility of diminishing or even eliminating the importance of the representative or the party.
I don't think the DNC has as much control over the situation as you think. So far, they haven't really done anything. Them stealing the nomination would be using superdelegates to force through Biden in a contested convention. With Biden now the only remaining moderate candidate, he will probably go to the convention with a legitimate delegate majority and take the nomination in the first round of voting, without the involvement of superdelegates.
Thank god I will no longer get 2 advertisements per day in my mail box from this clown.
Imagine spending half a billion dollars to win American Samoa.
Simple question: why Buttigieg and Bloomberg are supporting Biden, even though Bernie is ahead in the polls?
Simple answer: The DNC insiders made a few phone calls to get the field to narrow with a lot of Biden endorsements. Amy and Pete were convinced to drop and endorse Biden. Warren gets to stay in because she's got the largest bloc of Bernie voters tied up in her base, and they can't have those going to Bernie. Consolidate the anti-Bernie vote, split the Bernie vote. Business as usual for the DNC, it should surprise no one.
Nobody orders Bloomberg to do anything, but he's scared shitless of what Bernie represents (as are most wealthy people/corporations), so he'll spend whatever it takes to shut Bernie down. He wanted to do it himself, but his numbers aren't there and Warren eviscerated him, so the next best way to wipe Bernie out is to back the frontrunner.
Please provide some proof of this "decree" or bribes/coercion. If you can't, don't push unsubstantiated conspiracy theories while making them sound like they're facts. Speculation is fine, but make it clear that's what you're doing. All of these candidates were doing terribly and had no chance, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy behind it.
I don't want to have to start removing posts, but I'm not going to let this site turn into another crazy "Sanders/Yang are being oppressed by the shadowy establishment!" circlejerk because people get upset when internet hype gets crushed by reality.
Honest question: Do you really think that all of this happened organically? That Amy and Pete just decided to drop out of the goodness of their hearts and declare their love for Biden?
I find that impossible to believe. Phone calls were made, cabinet positions were handed out, possibly even hints at VP. That kind of dealmaking is business as usual in politics. I think the threat to the centrally-aligned democrats in the party that Bernie represents was taken seriously and was the impetus for this entire shakeup.
We know Obama called Pete. That's the only real 'evidence' for this so far. I'm sure we'll hear plenty of rumors, and if Biden wins I'll be looking intently at his cabinet picks. What really happened here is only going to be known to the people directly involved - but there are plenty of people including me who saw something like this coming down the pipe. It was the only play the DNC had to make. It's just politics, not rocket science.
I will edit the decree bit out of my post since it's being seen as gospel rather than speculation.
It doesn't take a conspiracy to get candidates to drop out after repeatedly losing horribly. Continuing to run when you obviously have no chance is just a waste of everyone's time, money, and enthusiasm that could be better invested in someone that can actually win.
I agree with that completely, and Yang dropped out at the precise right time for me to believe that was his motivation.
The rest of them, however, sticking around just until the day before super tuesday when they haven't got a shot strikes me as holding out for a better deal from the party or perhaps just narcissism. Maybe that's not a charitable interpretation, but this is politics, and I've no charity left for it.
Actually, that's a good point I hadn't considered. Breaking late like that made it much more impactful. Perhaps I'm not giving the party leads enough credit for their strategy.
There feels like an obvious difference between naturally dropping out and literally every establishment candidate dropping out within four days of one another and then endorsing/stumping for the remaining establishment candidate in Texas, the make-or-break state that Biden was suffering in.
As I said in my comment a little bit above, it isn't a conspiracy, it's downright boring political dealmaking, with some solid evidence (like the Obama phone call) behind it. I'm curious why you think a bland backroom deal between ideologically-similar candidates is even noteworthy enough to count as a Bernie Bro/Yang Gang “conspiracy”?
Sorry, I'm not going to comment any more about it (and already wish I hadn't said as much as I did). I have no interest in political arguments, and wouldn't even read them if I didn't have to moderate them.
Probably because by tomorrow that will be the narrative in every single thread about this on every site except tildes. We need to avoid falling into those kinds of traps. Sticking to facts is as good a way as any to aim higher.
It doesn't really matter, because we don't have proof either way. That's what makes it unsubstantiated. It's just a best practice to qualify statements as speculation when they are.
I see. So Bernie is too lefty and independent for the rest of the DNC? Cause for me, as a foreigner, the DNC looks more like what I'd call "center", "center-right", or maybe even "moderate right".
You have to remember that both the DNC and RNC are bought and paid for by America's favorite children - the multinational corporations that have run roughshod over the world with impunity for the last century. They pay America well for that privilege every election season. Whatever lines the parties and candidates spout, there's still a lot of backroom dealing going on (as Biden just showed), and that's the greater part of the process. Voting in America has become just another episode of bread and circuses.
American politics is also pretty damn weird in general. Maybe it's because we got into this democracy business early and the system is just so damn old. There's a lot of baggage, like caucuses and the electoral college. There's also the 'red scare' era which has poisoned the well on any conversations that stray away from capitalistic ideologies. Young people now don't remember hiding under desks at school for nuclear bomb drills, or fighting world wars, or when the US government was hunting down and rounding up and jailing communist sympathizers. Old people still vote from that worldview here all the time. It might even be what keeps them voting.
Bernie is pushing for real reforms and is not afraid of those conversations. He's closer to the mainstream outside the USA, but inside the USA he's basically an anti-capitalist boogeyman to the uninformed (aka normal) voter. Older people get scared by expecting their taxes to skyrocket to pay for it all, younger people walk away from the system in disgust and don't vote because they can't find any real representation.
Our first past the post voting system locks us in to two parties as a mathematical consequence of how that system operates. A third party would only replace one of the others, not become a long term third option - which is what we need, someone who can adopt the sane middle ground between two ideological battlefields that don't represent reality.
Is there any actual decree to point to here? I wouldn't be surprised but it's good to ask. Also, can the DNC just order people to stay or leave?
We know for a fact that Obama had a phone call with Buttigieg just before he bowed out. It's a very normal inside-baseball thing to do; an almost-boring example of routine backroom dealing to consolidate behind the candidate the establishment wants more. No one made them; it's just an easy thing to argue for. Buttigeig was definitely going to get hit hard on Super Tuesday, with downright pathetic poll numbers and an ability to inspire no one who actually listens to the insipid drivel his entire candidacy was based on, so they politely laid out the options: ‘you have no bargaining chip here besides your high-tier ability to fundraise, and that will disappear after Tuesday. Stay on the party's good side, drop out now before you get embarrassed, endorse Biden, and we'll back you when it's Your Turn™/get you a nice job inside a Biden administration.’ It's just the obvious correct choice for the low-polling moderates.
Also, unlike the RNC, the DNC elites actually do usually keep their word—you can see generations of this backroom dealing play out every year—so it's a convincing argument when you're a soulless corporate power-chaser.
Exactly this.
I'll be curious to see what Bernie's response is. At least now we have a more honest race with a clear focus - a wave of new progressive policies, or a return to the pre-Trump mentality.
I haven't seen one. I'm sure we're a day away from rampant claims about favoritism and leaks on 4chan and a whirlwind of other nonsense related to this.
They can't just 'order' people around, but they can keep their foot on the scale. Remember that once elected you have to work with these people to remain in power, so you have an ongoing relationship with them that last long after elections are over. Nobody without an axe to grind is going to go against that and make their terms more difficult than they have to be.
It's just a tribal mentality in the end. At some point, you have to put the party ahead of the individual because you can't function without the support of that party in our current system. Those parties depend for their financing on corporations, and so corporations will set the agenda.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite scenes from a movie everyone should see. It's a dim world view, but it seems to me the closest to the truth. :/
People always share Beale's epic television rant. I find the boardroom scene from much later in the film to be the better of the two. ;)
DNC believes that Biden plays the best to the country, so once that proves out in SC, they ask the other candidates very nicely to consolidate their efforts behind Biden to try and lock out Sanders.
Biden leads the popular vote and delegate count. Doesn't really matter how Sanders is polling.
Good. He can now direct his resources to someone with an actual chance of defeating Trump. If he doesn't spend at least as much on the Democrats' chosen candidate as he did on himself, then this was just a vanity run.