U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2017, 10:15 AM
 
Location: New York City
8,227 posts, read 6,267,798 times
Reputation: 6015

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
I am a progressive's progressive but I must admit that it is likely that Bernie Sanders was the proximate cause of Donald Trump's appointment to the presidency.
How do you figure? Bernie was the left's Donald, except that the Democrat party did not allow him to advance by rigging back room deals so all the super delegates pledged for hillary before one vote was cast in New Hampshire. Hillary had all her favors lined up and they weren't going to let some maverick get nominated. The GOP on the other hand let the people speak and their maverick got through and won.

Funny how democracy works
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2017, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
21,452 posts, read 28,329,018 times
Reputation: 9739
How do I figure?


But for Bernie's existence, Hillary Clinton would be president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,153 posts, read 11,754,604 times
Reputation: 32132
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlakeJones View Post
How do you figure? Bernie was the left's Donald, except that the Democrat party did not allow him to advance by rigging back room deals so all the super delegates pledged for hillary before one vote was cast in New Hampshire. Hillary had all her favors lined up and they weren't going to let some maverick get nominated. The GOP on the other hand let the people speak and their maverick got through and won.

Funny how democracy works
Funny how reality works, because of course none of this is the case.

There is nothing remotely surprising that members of the Democratic party decided to support a long standing Democrat who had spent decades working on behalf of the Democratic party rather than someone who stated that listening to JFK made him physically nauseated, and said that he was not and had never been a Democrat on more than one occasion and explicitly stated that he only ran for the Democratic nomination because it would get him more media attention and therefore, more money. Gee, I can't imagine why someone like that didn't get support from more the people he made it clear he despised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,659 posts, read 6,266,537 times
Reputation: 11475
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
Funny how reality works, because of course none of this is the case.

There is nothing remotely surprising that members of the Democratic party decided to support a long standing Democrat who had spent decades working on behalf of the Democratic party rather than someone who stated that listening to JFK made him physically nauseated, and said that he was not and had never been a Democrat on more than one occasion and explicitly stated that he only ran for the Democratic nomination because it would get him more media attention and therefore, more money. Gee, I can't imagine why someone like that didn't get support from more the people he made it clear he despised.
When you have, as wikileaks has shown, members of a political party hierarchy actively working against a candidate (i.e. working against Sanders) in favor of another (i.e. Hillary), you have a problem. When you have politicians effectively casting their undemocratic, "super delegate" votes early before all voters have spoken, making it mathematically impossible for an insurgent candidate to win a primary and, I argue, dampening popular support for said candidate as a result, you have a problem. And Bernie Sanders has voted with Dems 98% of the time and has always caucused with them. Having written all of that, I'm thrilled that the Dem establishment treated Bernie as they did as I believe that Hillary is the only Dem who ran in 2016 who could have lost to Trump. So, hats off to the corrupt Dem establishment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,153 posts, read 11,754,604 times
Reputation: 32132
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
When you have, as wikileaks has shown, members of a political party hierarchy actively working against a candidate (i.e. working against Sanders) in favor of another (i.e. Hillary), you have a problem. When you have politicians effectively casting their undemocratic, "super delegate" votes early before all voters have spoken, making it mathematically impossible for an insurgent candidate to win a primary and, I argue, dampening popular support for said candidate as a result, you have a problem. And Bernie Sanders has voted with Dems 98% of the time and has always caucused with them. Having written all of that, I'm thrilled that the Dem establishment treated Bernie as they did as I believe that Hillary is the only Dem who ran in 2016 who could have lost to Trump. So, hats off to the corrupt Dem establishment
And again. Didn't happen. No superdelegate votes were cast until the convention. Party leaders stated who they supported, and no surprise, they supported the Democrat - just as they would have done without superdelegates being a thing (a thing invented by one of Sanders's top campaign staff btw, but that's besides the point).

Too bad for Bernie that millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton but the reality is that he lost because he got fewer votes. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 11:30 AM
 
10,058 posts, read 4,648,803 times
Reputation: 15280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
How do I figure?


But for Bernie's existence, Hillary Clinton would be president.
right, except that he cant rewrite history... and you still have president trump
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 11:39 AM
 
51,858 posts, read 41,758,040 times
Reputation: 32364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
I am a progressive's progressive but I must admit that it is likely that Bernie Sanders was the proximate cause of Donald Trump's appointment to the presidency.
Why? Because Hillary got caught cheating him so his supporters just couldn't vote for her and stayed home?

There are MUCH greater factors IMO the main one being how so many people touted that she had it in the bag so both Hillary and her supporters coasted down the stretch.

Another would be the bitter, racially charged 2008 primary that left a lot of black voters with negative opinions of her. The Obama camp did a masterful job of painting Hillary supporters as racists and it stuck to her like stink.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,659 posts, read 6,266,537 times
Reputation: 11475
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
And again. Didn't happen. No superdelegate votes were cast until the convention. Party leaders stated who they supported, and no surprise, they supported the Democrat - just as they would have done without superdelegates being a thing (a thing invented by one of Sanders's top campaign staff btw, but that's besides the point).

Too bad for Bernie that millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton but the reality is that he lost because he got fewer votes. Period.
Which is why I wrote "effectively" cast as the pledging of votes had the same stifling effect. But hey, maybe the Democrats will learn to let the Democratic process play out next time. I am doubtful though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,153 posts, read 11,754,604 times
Reputation: 32132
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Which is why I wrote "effectively" cast as the pledging of votes had the same stifling effect. But hey, maybe the Democrats will learn to let the Democratic process play out next time. I am doubtful though.
So you think that elected Democrats and other party officials should be barred from endorsing and working for and appearing with a candidate in the primary? That's the functional equivalent of what you are saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,659 posts, read 6,266,537 times
Reputation: 11475
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
So you think that elected Democrats and other party officials should be barred from endorsing and working for and appearing with a candidate in the primary? That's the functional equivalent of what you are saying.
No, and no it's not. If it was only an endorsement, we wouldn't be having this convo. And, indeed, endorsements rarely are of any consequence today in terms of getting people to vote. But these are not just mere endorsements we're talking about. These are endorsements that, while pledged, carry an outsized weight/influence in the official nominating process. What I'm calling for is a revamp of the process to reduce or eliminate the influence of party bigwigs in an official presidential nominating contest via the so called super delegate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top