So, just maybe the Tea Party is right in that the only way to overhaul the system is to grind the current system to a complete halt? (I don't know if that's right by design or right by accident.)
Maybe the socialist wing of the Democrats need to take the same militant approach as the Tea Party, aggressively challenging establishment Democrats at every opportunity, until they've got enough to dictate conditions to their party?
Could the Tea Party and the Warrenists ever find both the common ground and critical mass to work together to force an overhaul to the system?
You are talking like it would be a good thing if the only choices were a tea party candidate and a socialist candidate. I'd venture a guess that the majority wants neither of those. Some of the complexities in how the parties choose their candidates are designed to make it difficult for an extreme candidate to be chosen to represent the party with little chance of winning. I'm sure if Sanders continues winning primaries like he did in NH, he will be the nominee.
It still seems like a far more democratic process than Canada has for choosing its party leaders.
You are talking like it would be a good thing if the only choices were a tea party candidate and a socialist candidate. I'd venture a guess that the majority wants neither of those. Some of the complexities in how the parties choose their candidates are designed to make it difficult for an extreme candidate to be chosen to represent the party with little chance of winning. I'm sure if Sanders continues winning primaries like he did in NH, he will be the nominee.
It still seems like a far more democratic process than Canada has for choosing its party leaders.
Perhaps on it's face, but as we go down this road we see how the citizens' votes really have no bearing on it. The party (or delegates et al) can just choose who they want. Why is it the establishment's job to quell out extremism? That's the most un-democratic thing I've ever heard from a democratic society. If people want an extreme, they should get an extreme. One person's extremist is another person's revolutionary. Neither are necessarily bad things.
We also have many more options for the platform that we want to lead. If you're left of the Liberals? NDP. More environmentally inclined? Green. There's lots of talk about the Cons splitting because their far right is dragging the rest of the party. We have an array of options of platforms from which to choose.
Americans have two choices at the end, both of which have become pretty much the same.
You are talking like it would be a good thing if the only choices were a tea party candidate and a socialist candidate. I'd venture a guess that the majority wants neither of those. Some of the complexities in how the parties choose their candidates are designed to make it difficult for an extreme candidate to be chosen to represent the party with little chance of winning. I'm sure if Sanders continues winning primaries like he did in NH, he will be the nominee.
It still seems like a far more democratic process than Canada has for choosing its party leaders.
He might still be right, though, that this is the way to overhaul the system. Just not in the way he's envisioning. All through this primary cycle I've been thinking that we're well on our way to the GOP effectively being run by the Tea Party or people aligning with them philosophically on most issues. Meanwhile, if the socialist left (which may end up incorporating a bunch of the regressive left) takes over the Democratic party, we'll have two extreme parties, leaving room for a new centrist party to develop and attract votes from the disenfranchised center. Possibly also a Ron/Rand Paul style libertarian party to boot.
This might actually be the best possible outcome for the USA and would certainly make me much more confident in the self-corrective mechanisms supposedly inherent in the democratic process.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
But it seems like that's what voters are saying when they have Trump and Bernie in the lead.
They are sick of the political garbage, so they are voting against the establishment candidates.
Yeah, but we all know the rub here: 90+% of Congress will be returning after November. So all that "anti-establishment" will never actually materialize, and the establishment will still control the House and Senate, and thus essentially control the legislative process. Even if Bernie somehow wins, he will be so staunchly opposed on everything by the House and Senate, probably significantly more than Obama. It's at the House/Senate level that Bernie (and Trump) really need to get that kind of person into the process, but it's more likely than not that they will hurt the Dems/Repubs down-ticket if they are the nominee.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
You are talking like it would be a good thing if the only choices were a tea party candidate and a socialist candidate. I'd venture a guess that the majority wants neither of those. Some of the complexities in how the parties choose their candidates are designed to make it difficult for an extreme candidate to be chosen to represent the party with little chance of winning. I'm sure if Sanders continues winning primaries like he did in NH, he will be the nominee.
It still seems like a far more democratic process than Canada has for choosing its party leaders.
Oh, you misunderstand me, I don't think that would be a good thing at all; having moderate voices that represent the majority of a nation's opinion is crucial. But those moderate representatives are all disincentivized to make meaningful changes to the system. Where-as outsider groups are more likely to push for electoral reform. Enough representatives calling for reform from different parts of the political spectrum would be a positive.
Yeah, but we all know the rub here: 90+% of Congress will be returning after November. So all that "anti-establishment" will never actually materialize, and the establishment will still control the House and Senate, and thus essentially control the legislative process. Even if Bernie somehow wins, he will be so staunchly opposed on everything by the House and Senate, probably significantly more than Obama. It's at the House/Senate level that Bernie (and Trump) really need to get that kind of person into the process, but it's more likely than not that they will hurt the Dems/Repubs down-ticket if they are the nominee.
Elections are not supposed to bring about revolutions. Most countries are best served by incremental change, and the presidential election of the US is like that.
If Sanders wins, that's clearly a big step in a certain direction. It would legitimize a huge number of liberal progressive agendas and bring them to the realm of "worth debating because it could happen".
If the Sanders' ideas prove so popular that you can become POTUS with them, opportunistic house and senate candidates would adopt many of them to help themselves get elected. Of course others would then take positions directly opposed to those ideas, but that still changes things. It would also mean the next president could have even more liberal ideas without being considered a radical.
Obama clearly paved the way for Sanders to be taken seriously. If Sanders wins, Elizabeth Warren for example would essentially be a moderate in the following election. (And there would probably be a candidate further left of her that might actually get some votes.)
The talley that SCD was posting includes New Hampshire's superdelegates, of which there are 8, six of which have already committed to Clinton. It's worth mentioning that these super-delegates can change their allegience if they want to.
So even if Sanders continues to win states by the same margin as New Hampshire (unlikely), he would need a widespread defection of super-delegates from Clinton to him, which is only really conceivable in the case of a major Clinton scandal.
Didn't Clinton have a bunch of super-delegates in her pocket before Obama turned the tables?
After Sanders' Big Win in New Hampshire, Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. Here's Why It's Bull####
It's true that Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama. But Clinton's support is far greater than what it was around this time in 2007.
Back then, AP found that 169 superdelegates were for Clinton; Obama had 63 of the 90 percent they contacted in December 2007. That's a nearly 3-to-1 advantage. Her lead this year is 45 to 1.
Last edited by troutman; 02-10-2016 at 02:54 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Elections are not supposed to bring about revolutions. Most countries are best served by incremental change, and the presidential election of the US is like that.
If Sanders wins, that's clearly a big step in a certain direction. It would legitimize a huge number of liberal progressive agendas and bring them to the realm of "worth debating because it could happen".
If the Sanders' ideas prove so popular that you can become POTUS with them, opportunistic house and senate candidates would adopt many of them to help themselves get elected. Of course others would then take positions directly opposed to those ideas, but that still changes things. It would also mean the next president could have even more liberal ideas without being considered a radical.
Obama clearly paved the way for Sanders to be taken seriously. If Sanders wins, Elizabeth Warren for example would essentially be a moderate in the following election. (And there would probably be a candidate further left of her that might actually get some votes.)
I seriously doubt the bolded. Hillary being a terrible candidate has paved the way for Sanders being taken seriously. If the Dems had say...Al Gore running against Bernie, this primary process would already be over. Hillary being so widely disliked personally and her serious trust issues are why Bernie is a success, and even that can't be said until he does well outside a totally white Iowa and his backyard in the Northeast.
As to Obama, he's almost to the right of Reagan overall. He sold hope and change and maybe more progressiveness, but he accomplished nothing progressive of significance even with the full deck in his favour (control of both the House and Senate between 2008 and 2010). I tend to think Obama was a better President than he'll get credit for, but really he was essentially a moderate Republican as President.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
It's true that Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama. But Clinton's support is far greater than what it was around this time in 2007.
Back then, AP found that 169 superdelegates were for Clinton; Obama had 63 of the 90 percent they contacted in December 2007. That's a nearly 3-to-1 advantage. Her lead this year is 45 to 1.
My old memory is getting bad, I think I went through the same questions back in the Obama - Clinton race. The result is to just ignore the superdelegates as they won't vote against the populace. In the meantime it's a number put out there to intimidate Sanders supporters. The real numbers are Sanders leads 34-32.
1) Either Sanders wins or Clinton is weak and Bloomberg gets in the race.
2) Trump doesn't win and feels somehow screwed over and decides to go independant.
3) 4 way race for the presidency.
My old memory is getting bad, I think I went through the same questions back in the Obama - Clinton race. The result is to just ignore the superdelegates as they won't vote against the populace. In the meantime it's a number put out there to intimidate Sanders supporters. The real numbers are Sanders leads 34-32.
Basically it, if the super-delegates vote against the population then it's pretty much political suicide for the candidate and probably riots against the DNC. Sanders has some momentum coming out of this.
Did not know this - Sanders was the "first non-Christian candidate to win a state primary in U.S. history" [pastemagazine]
I'm still waiting for a non-religious, or "unaffiliated" candidate to win an election. Then, maybe, we can finally have a serious conversation about separation of church and state.
It's all variations on Judeo-Christian morality and ethics that bleed into the lawmaking. It would be great to have a break from that for a few years.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Bernie won every single demographic in NH except people over 65+ with household incomes greater than 200k. He pulled the same 60% across liberals, moderates and conservatives. He has to extend that success to minority populations (Iowa and NH are over 90% white I believe). Poll wise he's getting trounced in states with significant minority populations.
He needs to promote that because several of the next primaries are very Hillary friendly. That said, the wheels are coming off the Hillary campaign a bit. It is being openly mocked by everyone right now and that isn't good for her. Doubt Bernie can do anything in the next week or two to turn the poll numbers but if he can continue to chip away the later primaries and potentially convention are going to be interesting.
The result is to just ignore the superdelegates as they won't vote against the populace.
Oh I dunno... I think if it got to the point where it would be a brokered convention they wouldn't feel obligated to just vote for who ever had the plurality. In all likelihood it won't get to that in what is effectively a field of two.
I think that the democratic race is probably de facto done after South Carolina. The GOP race might stretch beyond Super Tue.
