| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Andres
girl that's it? please tell me there's something more, there has to be more  |
The "et cetera" signifies that there's tons more that I have espoused in many of my over 1,100 posts in this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Young people are the largest voting bloc in the country. They just have low voter turnout. Not really disproportional!
And the Democratic Party has been moving more and more to the right over the years. It wouldn't be a bad thing to shift it back to the left.
|
No, it really hasn't. Who among Democrats demonstrates precedent for being as liberal as Sanders? What time period?
I mean, this isn't the New Deal and the Great Depression right now.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Young people the largest voting bloc? They don't even vote  |
There are more young people than any other group in the country. Millennials have passed the baby boomer generation but still have the lowest voter turnout of any group.
Millennials would control the vote if they actually just showed up.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
He's not a socialist.
But yeah the superdelegates thing is a bit worrying. If the DNC establishment really want Hillary, they could use those to get her the nomination when she starts losing the popular vote.
I've actually seen a lot of people saying they'll vote Stein over Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination. It'll be interesting to see what happens!
|
The establishment has already done so in New Hampshire! Bernie crushed Clinton in the popular vote, but they both wound up with about the same amount of delegates (15).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,292
|
This thread got so ****ing messy over the last couple of days I see?
Ya'll didn't hear? Obama is becoming a lifelong president, Ellen's announcing it this sunday.
Trump came out of the closet, He's bald!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
I don't subscribe to the notion that it would be a sufficient split for Bloomberg to lose to Trump.
We're not in the general yet.
Regardless, I'm going to vote for the candidate I most side with. If that's Bloomberg instead of Bernard, then so be it, and shaming me for that is... tacky.
Notice how I don't complain about the Green Party floating candidates and splitting the liberal vote - I think third party and independent candidates are important.
|
Yet Hillary stans shame Bernie stans for not wanting to vote for Hillary and threatening to vote for other, non-Democrat candidates and suddenly it's okay?
Hmm... something isn't adding up.
also that bern shade wasn't cute
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
There are more young people than any other group in the country. Millennials have passed the baby boomer generation but still have the lowest voter turnout of any group.
Millennials would control the vote if they actually just showed up.
|
And that's an absolutely terrifying thought.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Superdelegates have been a thing since the 80s. It's not some new concept to force Sanders out
|
So you are fine with the DNC (the RNC does the same) ignoring the popular vote and choosing the other candidate?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
No, it really hasn't. Who among Democrats demonstrates precedent for being as liberal as Sanders? What time period?
I mean, this isn't the New Deal and the Great Depression right now.
|
Lincoln, FDR, LBJ. We were in the worst recession since the Great Depression btw so it's not far off.
The push to the center/right is a relatively new one.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by brianc33616
So you are fine with the DNC (the RNC does the same) ignoring the popular vote and choosing the other candidate?
|
Considering not once since their inception that they actually won the election for a candidate who lost the popular vote, yes I'm fine with it
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MAKSIM
Any logic that almost leads you to voting for Carson is almost....no, let me not.
|
I'm not voting for Ben Carson either. Carson is the least corrupt candidate still in the GOP Primaries and most sincere about his message, but I also don't agree with Carson's message.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by brianc33616
|
Yeah it's messy, and Debbie's words on it doesn't help to make the process seem fair.
BUT as long as it doesn't ruin Bernie's win I won't really worry about it. It's eye-opening to see how messed up the system is though.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Considering not once since their inception that they actually won the election for a candidate who lost the popular vote, yes I'm fine with it
|
So you see nothing wrong with Sanders winning 61% of the popular vote in New Hampshire to Clinton's 38%, yet they both got 15 delegates?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by brianc33616
So you see nothing wrong with Sanders winning 61% of the popular vote in New Hampshire to Clinton's 38%, yet they both got 15 delegates?
|
Nope
Because if Sanders keeps winning states the superdelegates will switch from Clinton to Sanders. Supers care more about who can win in November so they wouldn't stick with a loser
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
I see nothing wrong with the DNC influencing selection of their nominee.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
And that's an absolutely terrifying thought.
|
omg your age may explain all of this, how old are you?!
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Yeah it's messy, and Debbie's words on it doesn't help to make the process seem fair.
BUT as long as it doesn't ruin Bernie's win I won't really worry about it. It's eye-opening to see how messed up the system is though.
|
Bernie is going to wind up being the Ron Paul of 2016. I briefly re-registered GOP to support Paul in the Republican Primaries in 2012 (and within a week of the vote switched back to LP). Watching that year's primary process and how Paul's supporters were treated at the RNC 2012 Convention, right here in Tampa Bay, makes me glad I have completely washed the grime off of my hands belonging to both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by hooky
Yet Hillary stans shame Bernie stans for not wanting to vote for Hillary and threatening to vote for other, non-Democrat candidates and suddenly it's not okay?
Hmm... something isn't adding up.
also that bern shade wasn't cute |
When it's because it's Hillary, as in because of her as a person and not policy stances, that's wrong. When it's because of policy stances, they can vote for whoever the hell they want.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
I'm not Retro, but I'll voice in anyway. I don't hate Bernie's policies.
However, I recognize that Hillary and Bernie overlap on most of the important issues. They're both progressive candidates. However, Hillary is a moderate and Bernie is a radical. Hillary is wanting to make incremental change because she doesn't see it viable to promise big changes and then get into a gridlock which is very likely under a Republican-led Congress. An example of this would be raising the minimum wage... I don't feel all that comfortable with a 107% raise in minimum wage when Bernie's yet to cite a single economist that agrees with him on that notion. I would rather make a small change to raise it, have economists (you know, the people that understand that issue very well) see and analyze the impact and if additional raises would be worth it and would improve the economy, and then move from there. I don't feel comfortable having a radical change and then have it cause a bigger issue. Too much too fast is never a smart approach. Further, we've never really had change happen radically. When confronted with the challenge of passing radical, progressive change in a conservative Congress, Bernie simply responds with something along the lines of "I will make it happen!" or "Political revolution!" While it's idealistic, I don't have faith in a revolution against a system led by someone who is running to be the face of the system.
I actually trust Hillary's ability to get things done with our government because she seems to have a more realistic understanding of how to work within our system, despite it being inhibited to change. Bernie simply doesn't. Further, I also realize the president does not have as much power as a lot of people think. Above all, the president is the commander-in-chief and Bernie has completely failed himself in showing himself to not only be well equipped to take on issues of foreign policy well, but he also doesn't seem interested in those issues... Despite that being something the president actually has plenty of control over.
Hillary overall has more breadth (in terms of how many policies and issues she's concerned with) and depth (in how she speaks about executing policy, details, etc.) on every single issue. Bernie is wonderful for rallying people up and sparking interest in the flaws of the establishment, the economic model, etc. But, he has yet to explain how things will work out.
I like Bernie. I think he would do a great job in a cabinet position (like Secretary of Treasury), but he simply has not proven himself to me that he has the depth or understanding of what it takes to be president. Of anyone on either side, Hillary has that knowledge and understanding more than anyone else. Having served as first lady and secretary of state, working alongside two presidents... She knows what it takes and I have faith that she can translate that into a great presidency. I don't believe Bernie is capable of that.
Also, Bernie (and his fans) trying to sell himself as the Jesus figure of American politics it the most nauseating thing I've seen in this campaign (in my opinion).
|
170 economists agree with his plan.
The rest of your post sounds like the same criticisms I've heard over and over. "He's not realistic" etc. He might not be able to get it done with the current Congress but I'll just say this - if he wins the general election, suddenly the people that voted for him have real hope and faith that something will happen. They will get more involved in the political system and elect the right people to Congress (I've never been so interested in a presidential run). The momentum will be behind him.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
I see nothing wrong with the DNC influencing selection of their nominee.
|
The RNC Chair also chose sides with Romney in 2012. It's against BOTH parties' rules to side with a candidate prior to the choosing of their Nominee.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by brianc33616
The RNC Chair also chose sides with Romney in 2012. It's against BOTH parties' rules to side with a candidate prior to the choosing of their Nominee.
|
That's not true. Supers have overwhelmingly favored a candidate since 2000 with Gore and Bush
|
|
|
|
|
|
