clinton vs. sanders your vote? — Page 135

"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

"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

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

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

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

FYI

Bernie Sanders and his puppets = out of control whiners

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

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."

Kasich just now dropped out too.

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

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 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

"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.