clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 135

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 7:09am

"This election is turning into a watershed movement for GOP voters sick of the establishment and Indies/Young Dems who aren't fond of the 2 major parties.  As a member of the Libertarian Party, I welcome the competition for the hearts, minds, and votes of the electorate.  Not all of us fit neatly into one of the two boxes available and not all issues can be encoded in binary."

While I agree with you, I'm concerned about the country splitting up into a four- or five-party system. It will make progress extremely difficult. "Majority" will become far less attainable with votes for anything. It sounds good on paper, and very idealistic, but in reality, it's a giant step backwards as far as getting things done.

Voices will be more passionate (often angry) and aggressive and loud, causes will be more defined and less compromised, individuals will feel more like their "a la carte" and on-demand modern behavior patterns are being served, and absolutely nothing will get passed in the house or senate with a majority, let alone a two-thirds majority.

In other words, good luck with that.

Updated On: 4/30/16 at 07:09 AM

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 7:33am

Also, with our current electoral process such a scenario would greatly increase the chances of presidential elections being decided in the House.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 7:41am

"Also, with our current electoral process such a scenario would greatly increase the chances of presidential elections being decided in the House."

Exactly. We could end up with a third or fourth ideal choice for president actually getting in office. And passing bills or amendments would take decades instead of months or years. The whole process would go into slow-motion.

That kind of "progress" we don't need.

Unification, while unpopular to "individual thinkers" who like to pick and chose exactly what they want today (for anything from entertainment, to hookups, to shopping), is how things get done. It's a lot easier to unite people behind a cause (even a compromised cause) with a two-party system than it would ever be with a multi-party system.

The adult approach would be to understand the art of compromise and the value of unification and work toward getting as much of a "wish list" into play as possible, not splitting apart into many unyielding (mostly angry) sub-groups who all are "pure" in intentions, but will never see any of their "wish list" voted into law.

Updated On: 4/30/16 at 07:41 AM

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 8:01am

Agreed.  Although I loathe Bill Maher, I've found myself quoting him lately: “People need to learn the difference between an imperfect friend and a deadly enemy,”

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 12:10pm

The Tea Party began the destruction of the Republican-conservative alliance, and Trump completed it.

But destruction is only temporary. Alliances can be forged, broken and re-forged overnight. The only thing that that lasts are Supreme Court appointments.

If the Bernie supporters destroy the Democratic-liberal alliance the way the Tea Party destroyed the Republican-conservative alliance, we will be F*CKed for the next generation or two.

 

 

Updated On: 4/30/16 at 12:10 PM

[javero]

Posted: 4/30/16 at 2:53pm

Perhaps we're headed to a Grand Coalition ala Germany.  It just seems that the horse is out of the barn.

 Arguably, in terms of ideology six parties have already emerged, namely the Nationalist Party (Trump/McCain), the Tea Party (Cruz), the Inter-Faith Coalition (Huckabee/Romney/Santorum), the Libertarian Party (Rand), the Democratic Socialist Party (Sanders), and the Democratic Coalition (Clinton/Obama).  That leaves very little room on the GOP side for pragmatic folks aka establishment politicians willing to compromise like John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan.  It wouldn't bother me so much if the GOP ideologues didn't control the traditional swing states and their legislatures, as well as upstarts like North Carolina.

Hillary deserves all kinds of accolades for holding the Democratic coalition together.  Despite popular opinion, she didn't inherit it from Obama by default.

[Steve C.]

Posted: 5/2/16 at 5:31pm

....he just won't effing quit his $***., scrweing the party itself...that was his goal all along...

[South Florida]

Posted: 5/2/16 at 5:41pm

Steve C. please.  PJ, Hillary is to blame for all of her own problems, people didn't just start hating her last year, you guys are out of control whiners.

 

[binau]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 5:56am

So about all that money Clinton is raising to support the Democratic party.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

 

 

Updated On: 5/3/16 at 05:56 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 2:55pm

Don't be sill. The DNC administers the money and the states get it.

[Steve C.]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 6:01pm

FYI

Bernie Sanders and his puppets = out of control whiners

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 6:58pm

Steve C. said: "FYI

Bernie Sanders and his puppets = out of control whiners"

Ha! Let's take a moment to remember how Clinton supporters behaved when she lost to Obama (and remember...she stayed in until June!!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeGPzk8Oca8

[HorseTears]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 9:19pm

Sanders has won Indiana, CNN projects.  Looks like he really will be in it until California and DC.  

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 9:51pm

Cruz has suspended his campaign. 

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 7:54am

Each candidate received 45 delegates last night, so no change in the delegate math (other than the fact that Clinton is now less than 200 delegates from victory), but Bernie will continue to claim this as some significant "victory."

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 8:06am

Sanders will likely win West Virginia, and many/most/all the states between now and California/NJ.  But it changes nothing.  She has chosen to ignore him and the remaining primaries, focusing on Trump and the general.  Makes sense, especially financially.  Let the media drag this out and try to cobble a news story out of it, but there is none.  And while he is still flush with money, his fundraising diminished significantly in April, with Clinton raising more than him for the first time this year.

[Icehouse Life]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 7:37pm

Kasich just now dropped out too.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 9:31pm

 

At this point, all Bernie Sanders is doing is helping Donald Trump.

 

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 9:34pm

I think he knows that but couldn't care less. 

[binau]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 10:55pm

Things have slightly changed because now Trump can focus on Hillary while Hillary has to focus on both Trump and Sanders. So I agree there is potentially more merit to Sanders dropping out now (as opposed to say, last week). However, Hillary still hasn't clinched enough delegates to secure the nomination, and if she wants to focus on Trump she should convince enough voters in the upcoming primaries to vote for her so that she can secure the nomination. 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 11:44pm

Personally, I think Bernie should either drop out or direct all of his fire at Trump at this point.  That said, Hillary's in a tough spot, she can't call on Bernie to do that or she'll risk alienating younger voters.  Not to mention, she stayed in the race until the end in 2008.  And in that case, McCain had already secured the Republican nomination by March.  

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:44am

qolbinau said: "and if she wants to focus on Trump she should convince enough voters in the upcoming primaries to vote for her so that she can secure the nomination. "

She has. She can lose all the future primaries by 20 points and still walk away with enough delegates. This is all just a formality.

[binau]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 2:15am

TheatreFan4 said: "qolbinau said: "and if she wants to focus on Trump she should convince enough voters in the upcoming primaries to vote for her so that she can secure the nomination. "

She has. She can lose all the future primaries by 20 points and still walk away with enough delegates. This is all just a formality.

 

"

I'm pretty sure if she loses all future primaries by 20 points Sanders will overtake Clinton in the amount of pledged delegates, and have a real shot at winning the nomination. 

I'm not saying that this will happen, or that it is likely Sanders will be nominated (it's definitely not likely). But this whole race has been a surprise. Bernie started 1 year ago over 50 points behind Clinton in polls. My point is, it is not theoretically impossible for Sanders to win at this particular point in time (even if it is very unlikely). 

 

Updated On: 5/5/16 at 02:15 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 8:26am

This theoretical blather is doing nothing other than wasting valuable time.

The first two months of Trump's campaign will be the most important--and we will be wasting time fighting among ourselves.

If Bernie were truly interested in the progressive movement--if her were truly interested in the good of poor and middle-class PEOPLE--he would get out NOW.

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 8:54am

"I'm pretty sure if she loses all future primaries by 20 points Sanders will overtake Clinton in the amount of pledged delegates, and have a real shot at winning the nomination."

Actually, Sanders would need to win the remaining primaries by over 30 points to catch her in pledged delegates, and she has huge leads in the two largest remaining states, NJ and CA.  This race is over, and everyone outside the Sanders campaign knows it.  His continued fundraising is equivalent to fraud.