Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
It literally makes me ill that you geese are honking that Sanders needs to get out of the race, and then going on and on about how irrelevant his voters are. Well if we're so irrelevant why does it matter if he stays in?
override367 on
+12
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
This is getting annoying. I doubt everything is so clear-cut, but I am getting tired of how ornery the democratic campaign has been. I know 2008 was far worse, but there's something petty and irrational about all these skirmishes.
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Really helping shift the country to the left
Yeah fucking blame me for the fall of civilization for not wanting to give my time, energy, and money to an organization that not only considers me irrelevant but gets actively annoyed that I'm interested in participating in my democracy in the primary
They've got my vote, but they sure as shit haven't earned it, it's just that the other party is a bunch of wailing psychopaths
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Really helping shift the country to the left
Yes, the hostility to the left among Democrat is really not helping shifting the US leftward.
This is getting annoying. I doubt everything is so clear-cut, but I am getting tired of how ornery the democratic campaign has been. I know 2008 was far worse, but there's something petty and irrational about all these skirmishes.
Process fights are, almost by definition, petty and meaningless. But the ritual is still interesting to watch.
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Really helping shift the country to the left
Yes, the hostility to the left among Democrat is really not helping shifting the US leftward.
Democrats continue not to be hostile to the left.
Democrats continue to be hostile to people who complain but don't vote.
That there is strong overlap between those two groups continues not to be the fault of the Democrats.
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Really helping shift the country to the left
Yeah fucking blame me for the fall of civilization for not wanting to give my time, energy, and money to an organization that not only considers me irrelevant but gets actively annoyed that I'm interested in fucking participating in my democracy in the primary
They've got my vote, but they sure as shit haven't earned it, it's just that the other party is a bunch of wailing psychopaths
I'm mostly baffled since I don't understand Sanders' play. As the person trailing, he should want debates since he needs the race to change. Clinton would be happy to sit on the race and play prevent defense, but she's proposing the debates and he's swatting them away.
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Really helping shift the country to the left
Yes, the hostility to the left among Democrat is really not helping shifting the US leftward.
Democrats continue not to be hostile to the left.
Democrats continue to be hostile to people who complain but don't vote.
That there is strong overlap between those two groups continues not to be the fault of the Democrats.
If you think people who spend hours caucusing in a primary are just complaining and not voting in the general I don't know where to start with you
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
It literally makes me ill that you geese are honking that Sanders needs to get out of the race, and then going on and on about how irrelevant his voters are. Well if we're so irrelevant why does it matter if he stays in?
If you want to continue posting in this thread, stop with this antagonist bullshit.
I'm mostly baffled since I don't understand Sanders' play. As the person trailing, he should want debates since he needs the race to change. Clinton would be happy to sit on the race and play prevent defense, but she's proposing the debates and he's swatting them away.
It's very confusing.
If true it's not really confusing at all. It lets him play the "Those damn establishment folks just don't wanna give me a chance and afraid to take me on" card, but without having to risk fucking something up in a debate.
If not true, well, he wants debates and the rest is obvious.
I'm mostly baffled since I don't understand Sanders' play. As the person trailing, he should want debates since he needs the race to change. Clinton would be happy to sit on the race and play prevent defense, but she's proposing the debates and he's swatting them away.
It's very confusing.
A cynical person might say that the play was to refuse the debates then instigate a bunch of internet memes claiming Clinton is too scared to debate Sanders because she's such a dishonest corrupt money-taking liar who doesn't like his 'tone' when he's telling the truth, man, which would get spread around Facebook and do damage to Clinton whilst stirring up the 'fuck the system' vote and generating a bunch more fundraising before Clinton's campaign had the ability to explain that Bernie's campaign was the one refusing the debates, because if you're explaining then you're losing.
I'm mostly baffled since I don't understand Sanders' play. As the person trailing, he should want debates since he needs the race to change. Clinton would be happy to sit on the race and play prevent defense, but she's proposing the debates and he's swatting them away.
It's very confusing.
If true it's not really confusing at all. It lets him play the "Those damn establishment folks just don't wanna give me a chance and afraid to take me on" card, but without having to risk fucking something up in a debate.
If not true, well, he wants debates and the rest is obvious.
I'm not sure "that damn establishment" is going to swing 40 points in a couple extremely establishment east coast states, as anyone receptive to that attack is probably already on his side. He needs to adopt a high variance playbook.
Would he just sit down and shut up and get out of the way already, god
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Really helping shift the country to the left
Yes, the hostility to the left among Democrat is really not helping shifting the US leftward.
Democrats continue not to be hostile to the left.
Democrats continue to be hostile to people who complain but don't vote.
That there is strong overlap between those two groups continues not to be the fault of the Democrats.
If you think people who spend hours caucusing in a primary are just complaining and not voting in the general I don't know where to start with you
If you think people who say
The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again
and
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
can't be reasonably perceived as being less likely to vote in the general and/or emblematic of the attitude that causes the left not to show up in the general then I don't think you've been following the thread of the conversation that well.
The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Democrats.txt
She proposed 3 dates. The 14th is a Thursday with no sports happening. Obviously I have no idea, but the debate on the 4th was probably proposed because a TV exec said it could happen as nobody has anything scheduled against the NCAA championship game.
Turns out you can't just get on TV whenever you want, especially with a low rating Democratic debate.
The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Democrats.txt
One of the proposed times. The other was in the morning after Sanders has an appearance on GMA, and GMA gets such good ratings that that time slot would be pretty good.
The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Democrats.txt
It's the right move since if you have to do debate while ahead, might as well minimize viewership in case of unforced errors.
The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Democrats.txt
One of the proposed times. The other was in the morning after Sanders has an appearance on GMA, and GMA gets such good ratings that that time slot would be pretty good.
Yes, and the Sanders campaign has not said what their own proposed debate schedule was;
I just find it amusing that someone said, "Hey, let's try the time slot adjacent to the major local basketball championship,"
The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Democrats.txt
It's the right move since if you have to do debate while ahead, might as well minimize viewership in case of unforced errors.
Really? I'd think Clinton would want to start ramping-up her coverage / exposure as much as possible, getting ready for the GE fight. The one area that she will have to shore-up is that Mr. Trump is going to be very tough to steal the spotlight from.
It's about five months premature to be truly ramping up for the GE. You'd have time to ramp up, have the voters get fatigued, back off, ramp up again, and have them get fatigued again if you tried now.
It's about five months premature to be truly ramping up for the GE. You'd have time to ramp up, have the voters get fatigued, back off, ramp up again, and have them get fatigued again if you tried now.
I dunno, I think America has been put through an extensive training regimen to withstand long election seasons
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So, interesting points about both Democratic candidates: at least in terms of donations, they're both favorites of defense contractors for 2016. Ted Cruz follows closely at third.
According to the article, it follows the trends so far: from defense industry employees, 95% of Sen. Sander's contributions came in at under $250, whereas Sen. Clinton was more reliant on contributions of $1,000 or more. Both have been somewhat vague about how they'd modify Pres. Obama's positions, and he personally has been pretty favorable towards increasing military spending even amid the various budget battles on congress.
So, interesting points about both Democratic candidates: at least in terms of donations, they're both favorites of defense contractors for 2016. Ted Cruz follows closely at third.
According to the article, it follows the trends so far: from defense industry employees, 95% of Sen. Sander's contributions came in at under $250, whereas Sen. Clinton was more reliant on contributions of $1,000 or more. Both have been somewhat vague about how they'd modify Pres. Obama's positions, and he personally has been pretty favorable towards increasing military spending even amid the various budget battles on congress.
It's not surprising to me; Democrats have always had a very comfortable relationship with the armed forces & defense interests (with a few exceptions when it comes to companies with bloated super weapon projects. Hi, Lockheed Martin). It's always been kind of funny to me that the navy likes to name it's big boats after Republican candidates while the Democrats write them the checks necessary to build said big boats in the first place.
Socialsts (depending on your flavor) also tend to be pretty big proponents of military tradition, and Mr. Sanders is no exception here. The historical excuse has always been, "Well, remember Barbarossa?"
The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Democrats.txt
The Final Four isn't all night and would have been a potential draw. Plus that doesn't address the 14th or 15th.
Throughout this seemingly endless campaign season, I've been unable to avoid the surreality of some things. Because of the way the primary calendar and the electoral college works, there is functionally no chance that I will have any significant input in who gets elected to POTUS, either at the primary level or in the GE (and to be completely fair, Sanders hasn't done much in my homestate either). In theory my vote will effect federal and state-level offices - I would dearly like to be rid of both of my US senators, for one - but the DNC isn't really interested in taking any of those seats, and the state Democratic party is kind of a joke despite being dominant in state politics up until very recently. Local elections in a rural region are basically a matter of whose friends/family get the cushy government jobs for the next few years and have almost nothing to do with ideological concerns, or even necessarily competence.
So, at this point voting for me feels like it has almost no value as an actual act of participatory democracy, where I have a say in the direction our government takes. As a fairly left-wing voter from a rural working-class background, I'm stuck between two choices - one party that, while I favor them more from an ideological standpoint, is substantially uninterested in me actually voting for them, at least not to the point where they invest actual resources, people, or capital in my doing so.
The other party is somewhat more interested in me, but only inasmuch as I can be radicalized into a theocrat or, more recently, a blackshirt. Obviously this is no real option at all.
So, "voting" basically means I go in a booth, pull a lever for some candidates against whom the deck is stacked for one reason or another - some of whom clearly do not care if I vote for them or not, others whom have almost no hope of winning - and get a sticker. Apathy seems like a natural reaction, and is certainly less psychologically draining.
Still, I feel better about our current democracy than I did a couple of years ago. While the primary still isn't over, the Sanders campaign will (hopefully) demonstrate in the long run that masses of grass-roots activists can still mobilize in such a way as to shake up and alter one of the most massive political juggernauts of the past 50 years through working within the system, and as the baby boomers continue to age younger, more left-wing voters will continue to effect the existing platform in a positive way. In a way I envy people like my students, many of whom will be eligible to vote for the first time this fall. Things are, in all likelihood, going to improve; it's simply a question of whether or not those improvements will come fast enough for the problems we're looking at to actually be solved (climate change) or how many people are going to get fucked over/have their lives ruined in the meantime by the current flaws in our system (just about everything with the criminal justice system/drug war, obviously, the further gutting/privatization of education, etc.).
It's certainly been a more inspiring show of democratic action than the first time I voted.
Throughout this seemingly endless campaign season, I've been unable to avoid the surreality of some things. Because of the way the primary calendar and the electoral college works, there is functionally no chance that I will have any significant input in who gets elected to POTUS, either at the primary level or in the GE (and to be completely fair, Sanders hasn't done much in my homestate either). In theory my vote will effect federal and state-level offices - I would dearly like to be rid of both of my US senators, for one - but the DNC isn't really interested in taking any of those seats, and the state Democratic party is kind of a joke despite being dominant in state politics up until very recently. Local elections in a rural region are basically a matter of whose friends/family get the cushy government jobs for the next few years and have almost nothing to do with ideological concerns, or even necessarily competence.
So, at this point voting for me feels like it has almost no value as an actual act of participatory democracy, where I have a say in the direction our government takes. As a fairly left-wing voter from a rural working-class background, I'm stuck between two choices - one party that, while I favor them more from an ideological standpoint, is substantially uninterested in me actually voting for them, at least not to the point where they invest actual resources, people, or capital in my doing so.
The other party is somewhat more interested in me, but only inasmuch as I can be radicalized into a theocrat or, more recently, a blackshirt. Obviously this is no real option at all.
So, "voting" basically means I go in a booth, pull a lever for some candidates against whom the deck is stacked for one reason or another - some of whom clearly do not care if I vote for them or not, others whom have almost no hope of winning - and get a sticker. Apathy seems like a natural reaction, and is certainly less psychologically draining.
Still, I feel better about our current democracy than I did a couple of years ago. While the primary still isn't over, the Sanders campaign will (hopefully) demonstrate in the long run that masses of grass-roots activists can still mobilize in such a way as to shake up and alter one of the most massive political juggernauts of the past 50 years through working within the system, and as the baby boomers continue to age younger, more left-wing voters will continue to effect the existing platform in a positive way. In a way I envy people like my students, many of whom will be eligible to vote for the first time this fall. Things are, in all likelihood, going to improve; it's simply a question of whether or not those improvements will come fast enough for the problems we're looking at to actually be solved (climate change) or how many people are going to get fucked over/have their lives ruined in the meantime by the current flaws in our system (just about everything with the criminal justice system/drug war, obviously, the further gutting/privatization of education, etc.).
It's certainly been a more inspiring show of democratic action than the first time I voted.
This teds to be an issue with First Past the Post elections: you either strategically vote for the less evil candidate (which I have to say that I do still recommend, even if it's sucky) or effectively throw away your vote on a non-viable candidate (which will piss off the members of the less-evil party who often feel that they are entitled to your vote simply by virtue of being less-evil. And, if we're brutally honest about it, they're probably not wrong).
Proportional systems can work around this problem, but have their own trade-off: you get a chair for Mr. Sanders at the table, but there's also a chair for Mr. Trump in the room on the other side. Most decisions are then made via coalition agreements, so you can sometimes feel like you're shaking hands with the devil to get things done.
Some people (myself included) would prefer a switch over to the latter system regardless of the drawback, because it's more representative of the population even if that means the shit heads also get a say (and, yay, my own country is actually going to be doing that sometime in the near future!). Centrists tend to prefer FPtP, both because it tends to shut out the radicals & because it politically favors their election strategy (centrist parties like the Democrats tend to occupy small, dimly corners in more proportional systems. You can probably guess why. That said, they do also get to play kingmaker in such systems quite often. Kind of like how everybody hates Kennedy, but also waits with baited breath for his rulings (well, until Scalia's replacement is seated, anyway. Then Kennedy will be entirely forgotten about).
Throughout this seemingly endless campaign season, I've been unable to avoid the surreality of some things. Because of the way the primary calendar and the electoral college works, there is functionally no chance that I will have any significant input in who gets elected to POTUS, either at the primary level or in the GE (and to be completely fair, Sanders hasn't done much in my homestate either). In theory my vote will effect federal and state-level offices - I would dearly like to be rid of both of my US senators, for one - but the DNC isn't really interested in taking any of those seats, and the state Democratic party is kind of a joke despite being dominant in state politics up until very recently. Local elections in a rural region are basically a matter of whose friends/family get the cushy government jobs for the next few years and have almost nothing to do with ideological concerns, or even necessarily competence.
So, at this point voting for me feels like it has almost no value as an actual act of participatory democracy, where I have a say in the direction our government takes. As a fairly left-wing voter from a rural working-class background, I'm stuck between two choices - one party that, while I favor them more from an ideological standpoint, is substantially uninterested in me actually voting for them, at least not to the point where they invest actual resources, people, or capital in my doing so.
The other party is somewhat more interested in me, but only inasmuch as I can be radicalized into a theocrat or, more recently, a blackshirt. Obviously this is no real option at all.
So, "voting" basically means I go in a booth, pull a lever for some candidates against whom the deck is stacked for one reason or another - some of whom clearly do not care if I vote for them or not, others whom have almost no hope of winning - and get a sticker. Apathy seems like a natural reaction, and is certainly less psychologically draining.
Still, I feel better about our current democracy than I did a couple of years ago. While the primary still isn't over, the Sanders campaign will (hopefully) demonstrate in the long run that masses of grass-roots activists can still mobilize in such a way as to shake up and alter one of the most massive political juggernauts of the past 50 years through working within the system, and as the baby boomers continue to age younger, more left-wing voters will continue to effect the existing platform in a positive way. In a way I envy people like my students, many of whom will be eligible to vote for the first time this fall. Things are, in all likelihood, going to improve; it's simply a question of whether or not those improvements will come fast enough for the problems we're looking at to actually be solved (climate change) or how many people are going to get fucked over/have their lives ruined in the meantime by the current flaws in our system (just about everything with the criminal justice system/drug war, obviously, the further gutting/privatization of education, etc.).
It's certainly been a more inspiring show of democratic action than the first time I voted.
This teds to be an issue with First Past the Post elections: you either strategically vote for the less evil candidate (which I have to say that I do still recommend, even if it's sucky) or effectively throw away your vote on a non-viable candidate (which will piss off the members of the less-evil party who often feel that they are entitled to your vote simply by virtue of being less-evil. And, if we're brutally honest about it, they're probably not wrong).
Proportional systems can work around this problem, but have their own trade-off: you get a chair for Mr. Sanders at the table, but there's also a chair for Mr. Trump in the room on the other side. Most decisions are then made via coalition agreements, so you can sometimes feel like you're shaking hands with the devil to get things done.
Some people (myself included) would prefer a switch over to the latter system regardless of the drawback, because it's more representative of the population even if that means the shit heads also get a say (and, yay, my own country is actually going to be doing that sometime in the near future!). Centrists tend to prefer FPtP, both because it tends to shut out the radicals & because it politically favors their election strategy (centrist parties like the Democrats tend to occupy small, dimly corners in more proportional systems. You can probably guess why. That said, they do also get to play kingmaker in such systems quite often. Kind of like how everybody hates Kennedy, but also waits with baited breath for his rulings (well, until Scalia's replacement is seated, anyway. Then Kennedy will be entirely forgotten about).
A huge part of it could be solved if they'd just get rid of the damned electoral college. I mean, in an era of near-total congressional constipation, the only chance of any kind of federal policy movement is going to be from the executive. And the way the system is set up radically disincentivizes any kind of federal involvement in my state, at least at the executive level. It doesn't really matter what she does, unless it's the Republicans run the reanimated corpse of Judas Iscariot, Clinton is going to lose my state probably 40-60. This leads federal dems not to compete in my state, which leads to republicans solidifying their hold on it, which leads to further lack of interest from the federal level, and so on. Downward disenfranchising spiral.
Without the EV, however, that forty percent - a couple million people - at least has a chance to effect things in some way, and POTUS candidates would have to make at least a fig leaf of interest in my state. At least I could feel like I had actually contributed a vote of some kind instead of play-acting some kind of perverse electoral stillbirth.
Throughout this seemingly endless campaign season, I've been unable to avoid the surreality of some things. Because of the way the primary calendar and the electoral college works, there is functionally no chance that I will have any significant input in who gets elected to POTUS, either at the primary level or in the GE (and to be completely fair, Sanders hasn't done much in my homestate either). In theory my vote will effect federal and state-level offices - I would dearly like to be rid of both of my US senators, for one - but the DNC isn't really interested in taking any of those seats, and the state Democratic party is kind of a joke despite being dominant in state politics up until very recently. Local elections in a rural region are basically a matter of whose friends/family get the cushy government jobs for the next few years and have almost nothing to do with ideological concerns, or even necessarily competence.
So, at this point voting for me feels like it has almost no value as an actual act of participatory democracy, where I have a say in the direction our government takes. As a fairly left-wing voter from a rural working-class background, I'm stuck between two choices - one party that, while I favor them more from an ideological standpoint, is substantially uninterested in me actually voting for them, at least not to the point where they invest actual resources, people, or capital in my doing so.
The other party is somewhat more interested in me, but only inasmuch as I can be radicalized into a theocrat or, more recently, a blackshirt. Obviously this is no real option at all.
So, "voting" basically means I go in a booth, pull a lever for some candidates against whom the deck is stacked for one reason or another - some of whom clearly do not care if I vote for them or not, others whom have almost no hope of winning - and get a sticker. Apathy seems like a natural reaction, and is certainly less psychologically draining.
Still, I feel better about our current democracy than I did a couple of years ago. While the primary still isn't over, the Sanders campaign will (hopefully) demonstrate in the long run that masses of grass-roots activists can still mobilize in such a way as to shake up and alter one of the most massive political juggernauts of the past 50 years through working within the system, and as the baby boomers continue to age younger, more left-wing voters will continue to effect the existing platform in a positive way. In a way I envy people like my students, many of whom will be eligible to vote for the first time this fall. Things are, in all likelihood, going to improve; it's simply a question of whether or not those improvements will come fast enough for the problems we're looking at to actually be solved (climate change) or how many people are going to get fucked over/have their lives ruined in the meantime by the current flaws in our system (just about everything with the criminal justice system/drug war, obviously, the further gutting/privatization of education, etc.).
It's certainly been a more inspiring show of democratic action than the first time I voted.
This teds to be an issue with First Past the Post elections: you either strategically vote for the less evil candidate (which I have to say that I do still recommend, even if it's sucky) or effectively throw away your vote on a non-viable candidate (which will piss off the members of the less-evil party who often feel that they are entitled to your vote simply by virtue of being less-evil. And, if we're brutally honest about it, they're probably not wrong).
Proportional systems can work around this problem, but have their own trade-off: you get a chair for Mr. Sanders at the table, but there's also a chair for Mr. Trump in the room on the other side. Most decisions are then made via coalition agreements, so you can sometimes feel like you're shaking hands with the devil to get things done.
Some people (myself included) would prefer a switch over to the latter system regardless of the drawback, because it's more representative of the population even if that means the shit heads also get a say (and, yay, my own country is actually going to be doing that sometime in the near future!). Centrists tend to prefer FPtP, both because it tends to shut out the radicals & because it politically favors their election strategy (centrist parties like the Democrats tend to occupy small, dimly corners in more proportional systems. You can probably guess why. That said, they do also get to play kingmaker in such systems quite often. Kind of like how everybody hates Kennedy, but also waits with baited breath for his rulings (well, until Scalia's replacement is seated, anyway. Then Kennedy will be entirely forgotten about).
A huge part of it could be solved if they'd just get rid of the damned electoral college. I mean, in an era of near-total congressional constipation, the only chance of any kind of federal policy movement is going to be from the executive. And the way the system is set up radically disincentivizes any kind of federal involvement in my state, at least at the executive level. It doesn't really matter what she does, unless it's the Republicans run the reanimated corpse of Judas Iscariot, Clinton is going to lose my state probably 40-60. This leads federal dems not to compete in my state, which leads to republicans solidifying their hold on it, which leads to further lack of interest from the federal level, and so on. Downward disenfranchising spiral.
Without the EV, however, that forty percent - a couple million people - at least has a chance to effect things in some way, and POTUS candidates would have to make at least a fig leaf of interest in my state. At least I could feel like I had actually contributed a vote of some kind instead of play-acting some kind of perverse electoral stillbirth.
I believe that @ElJeffe has basically the same complaint (except that in his case, his state always goes blue no matter what, and comes into the primary process so late that it basically may as well not hold a caucus in 99% of elections). It says something kind of profound, IMHO, when the system makes you feel kind of powerless even if (as in Jeffe's case) things swing your way.
I mean, there are more elections than just the presidency.
The real problem with everything above.
I could say exactly the same thing in reply: why don't Clinton's supporters focus on the much vaunted down ticket races, then, if that's where the real action is at? Apparently the neo-liberal centrists somehow need / deserve the Presidential seat, and anyone else should just be happy with local races, because...?
Posts
When it comes to saving the presidency from the GOP, damn right I do. Bernie's not doing the country any favors by staying in right now, there's a reason in the other primary thread we're eating popcorn over the GOP fracturing as they go to the convention. At least there Trump actually has the power to back up being their nominee.
And you wonder why the progressive movement fails in politics.
I'll keep my energy in the primaries where it has a chance at doing something good
It literally makes me ill that you geese are honking that Sanders needs to get out of the race, and then going on and on about how irrelevant his voters are. Well if we're so irrelevant why does it matter if he stays in?
This is getting annoying. I doubt everything is so clear-cut, but I am getting tired of how ornery the democratic campaign has been. I know 2008 was far worse, but there's something petty and irrational about all these skirmishes.
Yes, good things like propagating sentiments like "The more I read this thread the less interested I am in ever supporting a Democrat again"
Really helping shift the country to the left
Yeah fucking blame me for the fall of civilization for not wanting to give my time, energy, and money to an organization that not only considers me irrelevant but gets actively annoyed that I'm interested in participating in my democracy in the primary
They've got my vote, but they sure as shit haven't earned it, it's just that the other party is a bunch of wailing psychopaths
Yes, the hostility to the left among Democrat is really not helping shifting the US leftward.
Process fights are, almost by definition, petty and meaningless. But the ritual is still interesting to watch.
Democrats continue not to be hostile to the left.
Democrats continue to be hostile to people who complain but don't vote.
That there is strong overlap between those two groups continues not to be the fault of the Democrats.
Democratic party in a nutshell.
Then they wonder why they can't win midterms.
It's very confusing.
If you think people who spend hours caucusing in a primary are just complaining and not voting in the general I don't know where to start with you
If you want to continue posting in this thread, stop with this antagonist bullshit.
If true it's not really confusing at all. It lets him play the "Those damn establishment folks just don't wanna give me a chance and afraid to take me on" card, but without having to risk fucking something up in a debate.
If not true, well, he wants debates and the rest is obvious.
A cynical person might say that the play was to refuse the debates then instigate a bunch of internet memes claiming Clinton is too scared to debate Sanders because she's such a dishonest corrupt money-taking liar who doesn't like his 'tone' when he's telling the truth, man, which would get spread around Facebook and do damage to Clinton whilst stirring up the 'fuck the system' vote and generating a bunch more fundraising before Clinton's campaign had the ability to explain that Bernie's campaign was the one refusing the debates, because if you're explaining then you're losing.
I'm not sure "that damn establishment" is going to swing 40 points in a couple extremely establishment east coast states, as anyone receptive to that attack is probably already on his side. He needs to adopt a high variance playbook.
If you think people who say and can't be reasonably perceived as being less likely to vote in the general and/or emblematic of the attitude that causes the left not to show up in the general then I don't think you've been following the thread of the conversation that well.
Team Clinton thinks it's a good idea to have the Democrat debate compete for airtime with NCAA finals.
Democrats.txt
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
She proposed 3 dates. The 14th is a Thursday with no sports happening. Obviously I have no idea, but the debate on the 4th was probably proposed because a TV exec said it could happen as nobody has anything scheduled against the NCAA championship game.
Turns out you can't just get on TV whenever you want, especially with a low rating Democratic debate.
One of the proposed times. The other was in the morning after Sanders has an appearance on GMA, and GMA gets such good ratings that that time slot would be pretty good.
It's the right move since if you have to do debate while ahead, might as well minimize viewership in case of unforced errors.
Yes, and the Sanders campaign has not said what their own proposed debate schedule was;
I just find it amusing that someone said, "Hey, let's try the time slot adjacent to the major local basketball championship,"
Really? I'd think Clinton would want to start ramping-up her coverage / exposure as much as possible, getting ready for the GE fight. The one area that she will have to shore-up is that Mr. Trump is going to be very tough to steal the spotlight from.
I dunno, I think America has been put through an extensive training regimen to withstand long election seasons
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Annoying Facebook memes.
Triply redundant.
According to the article, it follows the trends so far: from defense industry employees, 95% of Sen. Sander's contributions came in at under $250, whereas Sen. Clinton was more reliant on contributions of $1,000 or more. Both have been somewhat vague about how they'd modify Pres. Obama's positions, and he personally has been pretty favorable towards increasing military spending even amid the various budget battles on congress.
It's not surprising to me; Democrats have always had a very comfortable relationship with the armed forces & defense interests (with a few exceptions when it comes to companies with bloated super weapon projects. Hi, Lockheed Martin). It's always been kind of funny to me that the navy likes to name it's big boats after Republican candidates while the Democrats write them the checks necessary to build said big boats in the first place.
Socialsts (depending on your flavor) also tend to be pretty big proponents of military tradition, and Mr. Sanders is no exception here. The historical excuse has always been, "Well, remember Barbarossa?"
The same thing happened with the last debate.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Throughout this seemingly endless campaign season, I've been unable to avoid the surreality of some things. Because of the way the primary calendar and the electoral college works, there is functionally no chance that I will have any significant input in who gets elected to POTUS, either at the primary level or in the GE (and to be completely fair, Sanders hasn't done much in my homestate either). In theory my vote will effect federal and state-level offices - I would dearly like to be rid of both of my US senators, for one - but the DNC isn't really interested in taking any of those seats, and the state Democratic party is kind of a joke despite being dominant in state politics up until very recently. Local elections in a rural region are basically a matter of whose friends/family get the cushy government jobs for the next few years and have almost nothing to do with ideological concerns, or even necessarily competence.
So, at this point voting for me feels like it has almost no value as an actual act of participatory democracy, where I have a say in the direction our government takes. As a fairly left-wing voter from a rural working-class background, I'm stuck between two choices - one party that, while I favor them more from an ideological standpoint, is substantially uninterested in me actually voting for them, at least not to the point where they invest actual resources, people, or capital in my doing so.
The other party is somewhat more interested in me, but only inasmuch as I can be radicalized into a theocrat or, more recently, a blackshirt. Obviously this is no real option at all.
So, "voting" basically means I go in a booth, pull a lever for some candidates against whom the deck is stacked for one reason or another - some of whom clearly do not care if I vote for them or not, others whom have almost no hope of winning - and get a sticker. Apathy seems like a natural reaction, and is certainly less psychologically draining.
Still, I feel better about our current democracy than I did a couple of years ago. While the primary still isn't over, the Sanders campaign will (hopefully) demonstrate in the long run that masses of grass-roots activists can still mobilize in such a way as to shake up and alter one of the most massive political juggernauts of the past 50 years through working within the system, and as the baby boomers continue to age younger, more left-wing voters will continue to effect the existing platform in a positive way. In a way I envy people like my students, many of whom will be eligible to vote for the first time this fall. Things are, in all likelihood, going to improve; it's simply a question of whether or not those improvements will come fast enough for the problems we're looking at to actually be solved (climate change) or how many people are going to get fucked over/have their lives ruined in the meantime by the current flaws in our system (just about everything with the criminal justice system/drug war, obviously, the further gutting/privatization of education, etc.).
It's certainly been a more inspiring show of democratic action than the first time I voted.
This teds to be an issue with First Past the Post elections: you either strategically vote for the less evil candidate (which I have to say that I do still recommend, even if it's sucky) or effectively throw away your vote on a non-viable candidate (which will piss off the members of the less-evil party who often feel that they are entitled to your vote simply by virtue of being less-evil. And, if we're brutally honest about it, they're probably not wrong).
Proportional systems can work around this problem, but have their own trade-off: you get a chair for Mr. Sanders at the table, but there's also a chair for Mr. Trump in the room on the other side. Most decisions are then made via coalition agreements, so you can sometimes feel like you're shaking hands with the devil to get things done.
Some people (myself included) would prefer a switch over to the latter system regardless of the drawback, because it's more representative of the population even if that means the shit heads also get a say (and, yay, my own country is actually going to be doing that sometime in the near future!). Centrists tend to prefer FPtP, both because it tends to shut out the radicals & because it politically favors their election strategy (centrist parties like the Democrats tend to occupy small, dimly corners in more proportional systems. You can probably guess why. That said, they do also get to play kingmaker in such systems quite often. Kind of like how everybody hates Kennedy, but also waits with baited breath for his rulings (well, until Scalia's replacement is seated, anyway. Then Kennedy will be entirely forgotten about).
A huge part of it could be solved if they'd just get rid of the damned electoral college. I mean, in an era of near-total congressional constipation, the only chance of any kind of federal policy movement is going to be from the executive. And the way the system is set up radically disincentivizes any kind of federal involvement in my state, at least at the executive level. It doesn't really matter what she does, unless it's the Republicans run the reanimated corpse of Judas Iscariot, Clinton is going to lose my state probably 40-60. This leads federal dems not to compete in my state, which leads to republicans solidifying their hold on it, which leads to further lack of interest from the federal level, and so on. Downward disenfranchising spiral.
Without the EV, however, that forty percent - a couple million people - at least has a chance to effect things in some way, and POTUS candidates would have to make at least a fig leaf of interest in my state. At least I could feel like I had actually contributed a vote of some kind instead of play-acting some kind of perverse electoral stillbirth.
I believe that @ElJeffe has basically the same complaint (except that in his case, his state always goes blue no matter what, and comes into the primary process so late that it basically may as well not hold a caucus in 99% of elections). It says something kind of profound, IMHO, when the system makes you feel kind of powerless even if (as in Jeffe's case) things swing your way.
The real problem with everything above.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I could say exactly the same thing in reply: why don't Clinton's supporters focus on the much vaunted down ticket races, then, if that's where the real action is at? Apparently the neo-liberal centrists somehow need / deserve the Presidential seat, and anyone else should just be happy with local races, because...?