| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by brianc33616
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.
|
I didn't really follow that election - how was Paul doing in the elections?
Bernie has been getting increasing support from all sides of the political spectrum. I feel like people have learned from their mistakes of the past this time around. Any unfair tactics will be exposed immediately.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
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.
|
I really don't agree we've moved much to the right, but I also don't see it as a bad thing and prefer a centrist position (on non-social issues).
There's a reason my backup is Bloomberg and not Bernie. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
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
|
If you read the link to the article I provided, the DNC Chair CLEARLY says the Superdelegates exist to negate any grassroots support from a non-establishment candidate. Those Superdelegates are establishment Democrats, so they won't support Sanders over Clinton, no matter how much Bernie were to win by in a popular vote. Read the article, and even as a Clinton supporter, you have to agree your party is playing with the primary process, like the RNC did in 2012, is WRONG!
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
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.
|
The only point I'm going to pick out of here - because I don't have the energy for more - is the motivation.
That just won't happen. We will not elect a congress that can facilitate anything remotely near what Bernie wants.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,331
|
^ And that's in part due to millenials not voting.
I'm not saying that I support Hillary, but I do believe that Bernie will not have a Congress that will cooperate with him. If he becomes president, we will have the least productive legislative branch in a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
|
He has yet to cite them in debates. Regardless, many democratic economists have spoken against his plan. Even an economist who backed Bernie's plan has went on to say he's voting for Hillary.
Quote:
|
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.
|
We've already seen this happen. Obama did the exact same thing and he went in with democratic support... Regardless, that doesn't address my points that Hillary is simply invested in more issues and actually provides detail and seems to have some semblance of a plan about how to go about accomplishing her goals. I have provided many reasons as to why I have more faith in Hillary and it's not as simple as "she's more realistic."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
I really don't agree we've moved much to the right, but I also don't see it as a bad thing and prefer a centrist position.
There's a reason my backup is Bloomberg and not Bernie. |
That's fine and I respect your decision but it's still illogical to have a two-party system where one is far right and the other is in the center. The ones on the left wouldn't have a voice.
Bernie is really just moving the Democratic Party back to where it's historically been and people are calling him a socialist
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by brianc33616
If you read the link to the article I provided, the DNC Chair CLEARLY says the Superdelegates exist to negate any grassroots support from a non-establishment candidate. Those Superdelegates are establishment Democrats, so they won't support Sanders over Clinton, no matter how much Bernie were to win by in a popular vote. Read the article, and even as a Clinton supporter, you have to agree your party is playing with the primary process, like the RNC did in 2012, is WRONG!
|
I read the article. It doesn't exist to negate that. It exists because the democrats didn't want another George McGovern. It has happened time and time again (the most recent example being 2008) if one candidate is running away with the popular vote they will choose the winning candidate because that person has the best shot to win the GE. Period.
And that's untrue Sanders has quite a bit of superdelegates already. The reason he doesn't have more is because he hates the establishment and put himself out there as a lone wolf, refuses to help down ticket Dems, doesn't donate to the DNC, hasn't made friends in congress, and people just don't trust him as much as Hillary
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2009
Posts: 5,464
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
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.
|
Christ, read what you just wrote. That is some naïveté on a whole new level. If all of that didn't happen with Obama, why would it now with Bernie? Especially when the republicans will win in a landslide in 2018 because democrats don't come out and vote in midterms. You can't risk our country's future on the premise that suddenly people will get more involved and we'll get the right people in congress, especially when the republicans have a lock on the House until the 2020s because of gerrymandering. This is why our country can't be left to millennials who have no clue how politics/the real world works.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
|
Bernie is really just moving the Democratic Party back to where it's historically been and people are calling him a socialist
|
Historically, the democratic party supported slavery...
I hate the two-party system, but I don't like the idea of having a far-right party and a far-left party. To me, it highlights the need for disposal of the two-party system.
And BERNIE calls himself a socialist (Democratic Socialism is just socialism with an adjective in front of it to distinguish it from the extreme form of socialism that Americans are scared of).
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
That's fine and I respect your decision but it's still illogical to have a two-party system where one is far right and the other is in the center. The ones on the left wouldn't have a voice.
Bernie is really just moving the Democratic Party back to where it's historically been and people are calling him a socialist |
Again I disagree with this notion that Bernie is anything like historical Democrats, but I also don't support a two party system, so the far left can be excised from the party for all I care.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
I read the article. It doesn't exist to negate that. It exists because the democrats didn't want another George McGovern. It has happened time and time again (the most recent example being 2008) if one candidate is running away with the popular vote they will choose the winning candidate because that person has the best shot to win the GE. Period.
And that's untrue Sanders has quite a bit of superdelegates already. The reason he doesn't have more is because he hates the establishment and put himself out there as a lone wolf, refuses to help down ticket Dems, doesn't donate to the DNC, hasn't made friends in congress, and people just don't trust him as much as Hillary
|
John McCain seems to respect him a lot.
And everyone I know trusts Bernie much more than Hillary. Maybe establishment Democrats trust her more but Independents, third parties, centrists, and Republicans tend to not trust her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ShineOverShadow
Christ, read what you just wrote. That is some naïveté on a whole new level. If all of that didn't happen with Obama, why would it now with Bernie? Especially when the republicans will win in a landslide in 2018 because democrats don't come out and vote in midterms. You can't risk our country's future on the premise that suddenly people will get more involved and we'll get the right people in congress, especially when the republicans have a lock on the House until the 2020s because of gerrymandering. This is why our country can't be left to millennials who have no clue how politics/the real world works.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by hooky
John McCain seems to respect him a lot.
And everyone I know trusts Bernie much more than Hillary. Maybe establishment Democrats trust her more but Independents, third parties, centrists, and Republicans tend to not trust her.
|
Good for John McCain. Too bad he can't endorse him.
Anyways those people aren't superdelegates so who cares if they trust him more? And even if they do, we have to see if they trust him more enough to give him the nomination
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
The only point I'm going to pick out of here - because I don't have the energy for more - is the motivation.
That just won't happen. We will not elect a congress that can facilitate anything remotely near what Bernie wants.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
^ And that's in part due to millenials not voting.
I'm not saying that I support Hillary, but I do believe that Bernie will not have a Congress that will cooperate with him. If he becomes president, we will have the least productive legislative branch in a very long time.
|
That's the entire reason why. If millennials vote, Congress is completely different.
End of story.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
He has yet to cite them in debates. Regardless, many democratic economists have spoken against his plan. Even an economist who backed Bernie's plan has went on to say he's voting for Hillary.
We've already seen this happen. Obama did the exact same thing and he went in with democratic support... Regardless, that doesn't address my points that Hillary is simply invested in more issues and actually provides detail and seems to have some semblance of a plan about how to go about accomplishing her goals. I have provided many reasons as to why I have more faith in Hillary and it's not as simple as "she's more realistic." |
Hillary definitely has more experience and that's great but for me I don't think she's the right candidate. Outside of her controversies she has changed her position on way too many things. Just in the batch of emails today, she was advocating for more free trade agreements even though she said she's against them.
Quote:
Originally posted by ShineOverShadow
Christ, read what you just wrote. That is some naïveté on a whole new level. If all of that didn't happen with Obama, why would it now with Bernie? Especially when the republicans will win in a landslide in 2018 because democrats don't come out and vote in midterms. You can't risk our country's future on the premise that suddenly people will get more involved and we'll get the right people in congress, especially when the republicans have a lock on the House until the 2020s because of gerrymandering. This is why our country can't be left to millennials who have no clue how politics/the real world works.
|
Obama got the ball rolling. Bernie will finish the job.
And screaming @ millennials not knowing how the world works when people constantly say "single-payer healthcare will never work" even though it's been working in NUMEROUS COUNTRIES for years. K!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Bernie is against most of Obama's core though. Don't see how he'll finish something he will get rid of
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 4/5/2014
Posts: 5,828
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
I didn't really follow that election - how was Paul doing in the elections?
Bernie has been getting increasing support from all sides of the political spectrum. I feel like people have learned from their mistakes of the past this time around. Any unfair tactics will be exposed immediately.
|
The people counting the votes started breaking laws by counting the votes in private, an unprecedented move by even the corrupted GOP. Paul had substantially more votes than what caucus vote counters reported. In Maine, the GOP Chairman favoring Romney in the Primary closed his polls that day for a snowstorm that didn't happen because Paul was popular in his precinct.
The vote totals reporters by party officials in other precincts also didn't match the actual votes in many other precincts, as vote counters said the Maine GOP recorded vote totals that didn't match the real vote counts. In many precincts, the GOP automatically recorded a zero for Paul even where he won the popular vote. Paul actually won Maine, but the establishment operatives gave the election to Romney. I'm trying to find links but the website only goes back to 2013.
The same will almost certainly happen with Sanders since the establishment operatives are on Clinton's side. The fact BOTH major parties are splitting is good for Americans, unless those other groups breaking off are also prevented from participating in the CPD Debates.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Historically, the democratic party supported slavery...
I hate the two-party system, but I don't like the idea of having a far-right party and a far-left party. To me, it highlights the need for disposal of the two-party system.
And BERNIE calls himself a socialist (Democratic Socialism is just socialism with an adjective in front of it to distinguish it from the extreme form of socialism that Americans are scared of).
|
Nope that's incorrect. And that socialism that Americans are scared of is already in effect in the form of military, public school, national parks, and more. They need to get educated.
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Again I disagree with this notion that Bernie is anything like historical Democrats, but I also don't support a two party system, so the far left can be excised from the party for all I care.
|
You don't like Bernie or liberals, we get it
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Millennials do not have the capacity to fundamentally alter the Congress to be so radically left, especially when not all even support Sanders (or are liberals for that matter).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Bernie is against most of Obama's core though. Don't see how he'll finish something he will get rid of
|
What is he getting rid of?
And I was talking less on their actual ideas and more on their message. Obama was about HOPE & CHANGE, YES WE CAN. Bernie is about the same thing. There's a reason why people are showing up in droves for his speeches. He inspires people just like Obama did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
