|
Election day's too late. Create better candidates in between elections. On election day, vote for harm minimization because that's all that's left to do.
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
basic hitler posted:Run people under one of the parties people will vote for retards i usually agree with your politics-of-a-goon, but on this point, no the problems in the Democratic party are systemic. it's a system that will prevent/smear/cheat an actual progressive from ever gaining any meaningful traction whatsoever. they'd much rather lose coast-to-coast and continue on their rich Wall St cocktail circuit with a Pres Trump or a Pres Cruz, than a Pres Bernie. what you're suggesting will never, ever happen. the only way and I mean the loving ONLY WAY to circumvent the establishment is to legitimize a (non-insane) third-party option.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Jose Oquendo posted:And Trump would have a great post kill pun. "So you finally broke through the glass ceiling, huh." *flicks cigarrette*
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
phasmid posted:Also I liked the occasional rabid liberal attacking Sanders for being Socialist or even Communist. Dude, you claim to be on the left - you're supposed to be FOR Socialism. Liberals are scum. But actually not everything to the left of center is automatically Socialism you know. Also in case you guys missed this, here's the DNC arguing in court they don't owe anyone a fair primary process: quote:But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. One of those "legally correct but sinking the ship to plug a hole" things imo. quote:The same lawyer also argued that there is “no contractual obligation” to prevent advantage or disadvantage between candidates, and that the evenhandedness and impartiality language in the DNC charter is not “self-defining.” "Ayy what does 'impartial' even mean???" COMRADES fucked around with this message at 04:25 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:Run people under one of the parties people will vote for retards Counterpoint: kill and eat one or both parties. Preferably both. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Radical and BADical! posted:hey retard, with this way of thinking we'd still be wearing tri-corner hats and drinking heavily taxed tea. the two party system sucks and it needs to go. the right and left wing establishments are complete monoliths. the whole point of america is to be able to vote based on your views no matter how stupid they may be you're never taking down the two party system without controlling one of the two parties. it won't happen. the democratic party is nothing but the sum of its parts too, so the only way to do it is to get a large enough faction of people who ran as democrats who want to change. You'll never, ever, ever, ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER get this done by voting for your third party of choice. It will never happen. Never. Ever. Never.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:you're never taking down the two party system without controlling one of the two parties. it won't happen. the democratic party is nothing but the sum of its parts too, so the only way to do it is to get a large enough faction of people who ran as democrats who want to change. You'll never, ever, ever, ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER get this done by voting for your third party of choice. It will never happen. Never. Ever. Never. god willing, you'll be eating those words soon, friendo
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:you're never taking down the two party system without controlling one of the two parties. it won't happen. the democratic party is nothing but the sum of its parts too, so the only way to do it is to get a large enough faction of people who ran as democrats who want to change. You'll never, ever, ever, ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER get this done by voting for your third party of choice. It will never happen. Never. Ever. Never. This is pretty self-defeating. I mean, we sent men to the moon, I think we might be able to reform our electoral process a tiny bit at some point.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:get a large enough faction of people who ran as democrats who want to change. quote:You'll never, ever, ever, ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER get this done fixed sorry dude 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Homestar Runner posted:i usually agree with your politics-of-a-goon, but on this point, no Bernie, an independent, ran for and nearly got the democratic presidential nomination. The democratic party doesn't have the ability to stop people from running as democrats or seeking the nomination. they can pull or withold support or run their own candidates but if you run a real liberal against a center-right demoncrat in a secure district, you're likely to oust him and fill his seat. this needs to basically happen. The systemic issue is that the left-wing feels like they have to vote for a useless third party to have their voice heard when bernie sanders more or less demonstrated the actual way to achieve recognition of true left ideals. Homestar Runner posted:fixed This JUSt happened to the republicans with the tea party ousting a shitload of neocon seats and paving the way for that orange idiot that's now our president.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Still reading this book that this thread is supposedly about. Man, do they gloss over the Super-delegates vs delegates voted for by the public. At one point the book says "the whole process is very complicated" and something to the effect of "While Bernie rode the populist sentiment, Hilary focused on locking in every possible vote for the nomination" without actually going into the difference between the locked-in, popular vote driven, regular delegates (which Bernie tended to nab) and the party insider super-delegates (which Hilary overwhelmingly got). Later it says that Hilary was confused as to why the Bernie folks were mad at her even during the convention when Bernie was being handed his hat. "More people voted for me? Why is there still such contention?" Well, yeah. Technically more people at the convention voted for you, Hilary... This is supposed to be a kiss and tell book. Why are we pulling our punches here?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
basic hitler obvi u and i want the same ends but yeah, I really disagree with u on the means I think the DNC is a ruling-class only party, and a law unto itself. I don't see any progressive route whatsoever through a party that is essentially a mouthpiece for the donors. My feeling is that even had Bernie "won" the nomination, the superdelegates would have ignored their duty and overturned it for Hillary. I don't think he was, in reality, actually that close at all. And I think the same would happen in future races. I also think there's a wide gulf between Trump's campaign rhetoric and who/what he actually represents, and I think the RNC mostly knew that. And as much as I hate the Republican party, they are more prepared to (and therefore much better at) falling in line and closing ranks, than the tonedeaf and flailingly incompetent DNC.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Homestar Runner posted:basic hitler obvi u and i want the same ends but yeah, I really disagree with u on the means I agree with this
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
at a certain point the Democratic Party will have to change, because on their current trajectory they'll continue to lose elections continuing to lose elections will decrease their influence decreased influence will decrease their funding via lobby groups and other donors, as those forces seek further influence elsewhere without the backing of the elite, the party will die the Whigs died and the Republicans took their place, similarly the Democrats will die and the Progressives, or something else, will take their place
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
democrats do fine on the subnational level
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
yall literally aren't understanding the point here: the purpose and place of a democrat has varied wildly over the years and its membership is constantly in flux as is the republican party. That's from the voter to the elected level. in 2006 and 2008 when the democrats won majorities there were tons of republicans who changed affiliation over night despite not really changing a loving bit on policy. Bernie has never been a democrat and nearly won their nomination for president. We, as people are more capable of taking the party away from the elite, and garnering votes with it, than ever sitting a single green party member in the house or senate. And frankly i don't want a loving green in the house or senate, or the presidency. gently caress the greens. These parties in their obscurity have become fairly niche and attracted with them insanely toxic and unproductive people who are an extremely, insanely poor foundation for meaningful growth. Like it or not, a low-information voter with left wing sympathies is not going to vote third party ever, but if you slap a democrat in front of even someone like jill stein, she suddenly becomes more viable. With the baggage of the pandering-to-nutjobs green party platform and base she's just a boat anchor on leftist politics but she makes a living being the "outsider" and these more substantial third parties are truly little more than a racket. Not that the dems are any better, but at least you can like, get a winning percentage of votes as a democrat. It's just a title. That's it. If you're too proud to use the one title you can use to get winning votes and therefore affect things, then you deserve to lose. I know leftists have a fetish for the underdog but i'm kind of bored of seeing good ideas losing because a bunch of people think voting for the PSL and plotting a revolution that will never happen is somehow more productive than trying to co-opt a party with a powerful brand it has startlingly little control over who uses it to their own ends.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
i think this colonel sanders fellow would have won
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
At the same time, the democrats and republicans have not been around since the constitution. Both were once upstart parties born because of elites, corruption, and stagnation in one of the two governing parties. Even if all you get is a regional party at first, they can coalition with dems to get what they want. I mean the republicans went from being a no nothing extremist party to having their man in the White House in under a decade. While they did have slavery as a major issue that rallied northerners, a new deal economic policy may be a big enough spark to get you similar results.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:democrats do fine on the subnational level I've got bad news. At the subnational level... Article: Republicans Now Control Record Number of State Legislative Chambers From: CBS News Date: November 16, 2016 quote:... Article: Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president? | [True] From: Politifact Date: January 25, 2015 quote:... Edit: really queer Christmas posted:At the same time, the democrats and republicans have not been around since the constitution. Both were once upstart parties born because of elites, corruption, and stagnation in one of the two governing parties. Even if all you get is a regional party at first, they can coalition with dems to get what they want. I mean the republicans went from being a no nothing extremist party to having their man in the White House in under a decade. While they did have slavery as a major issue that rallied northerners, a new deal economic policy may be a big enough spark to get you similar results. I want every commie-loving socialist in the US to move to western Washington to commandeer all local political machinery. After that, capture WA's state government and congressional seats. Go all Free State Project on this except replacing libertarianism with Scandinavian social democracy (and we even have fjords). That'd be nice 
Accretionist fucked around with this message at 06:39 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Well tell me this, smartyman, how are the republicans doing on the subnautical level, hmmmM????
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
their energy/environment policies will offer great subnautical opportunities
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
guess which is which: DNC approval rating and Trump approval rating
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
why waste a good thing like socialism on the PNW
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
But again, the problems with the DNC are deeply systemic. It's a system that's been completely turned over to the donors. The days of the Democratic Party representing anybody but the rich are looooooong gone. Expecting to just replace the current sitting bunch of bad seeds with "good" seeds, when the system itself is inherently corrupting and under the complete control of the ruling class, is going to result in endless years of zero progress and hapless flailing. Good luck with that. You keep saying that Bernie got real close. Okay, well, the only thing that stopped Bernie from winning the nom was the DNC establishment itself. They'll do it again in 2020, and 2024, etc. Even if by some miracle, a Bernie-crat actually got through (lol), the DNC would spin its wheels at hyperspeed and spend this person's entire term obstructing from within whilst claiming to be playing 4-D bipartisan chess with Republicans. The only opportunity for actual progress is to build a third-party option from the ground-up, that isn't beholden to corporations, viable. Something like the Justice Democrats, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
really queer Christmas posted:At the same time, the democrats and republicans have not been around since the constitution. Both were once upstart parties born because of elites, corruption, and stagnation in one of the two governing parties. Even if all you get is a regional party at first, they can coalition with dems to get what they want. I mean the republicans went from being a no nothing extremist party to having their man in the White House in under a decade. While they did have slavery as a major issue that rallied northerners, a new deal economic policy may be a big enough spark to get you similar results. This is true, but it's pretty much always been two dominant parties; the rise of the Republican Party coincided with the implosion of the Whig party and the remnants got folded in accordingly. The issue is a systemic one.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:This is true, but it's pretty much always been two dominant parties; the rise of the Republican Party coincided with the implosion of the Whig party and the remnants got folded in accordingly. The issue is a systemic one. isnt trump a whig heh heh heh
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:Also in case you guys missed this, here's the DNC arguing in court they don't owe anyone a fair primary process: at this point we all know they've bought the court and might as well just say less to avoid causing more and more democrats from going independent it's insane how much that court case has been exposing, also people randomly dying, with no media coverage
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
Elpato posted:Still reading this book that this thread is supposedly about. Man, do they gloss over the Super-delegates vs delegates voted for by the public. At one point the book says "the whole process is very complicated" and something to the effect of "While Bernie rode the populist sentiment, Hilary focused on locking in every possible vote for the nomination" without actually going into the difference between the locked-in, popular vote driven, regular delegates (which Bernie tended to nab) and the party insider super-delegates (which Hilary overwhelmingly got). they also don't explain that the superdelegate system was put in place so that they could make the better choice if a shittier general election candidate (clinton) got more votes in the primaries etc so the party wouldn't be stuck with a loser. that they all immediately pledged for clinton before any voting happened was dumb as poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:isnt trump a whig heh heh heh he's more a know-nothing
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
a little trenchant US political humor joke for you there
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Ya'll should vote me in for Pres in a few years. I promise I'll do a better job than any pres in the last 20 years.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Had we picked any random democrat politician from out of the entire country, alderman or comptroller or precinct committeemen, for the 2016 candidate not only would they have stood a better chance of beating Donald Trump, they could likely articulate why they want to be president lol
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:Had we picked any random democrat politician from out of the entire country, alderman or comptroller or precinct committeemen, for the 2016 candidate not only would they have stood a better chance of beating Donald Trump, they could likely articulate why they want to be president lol even saying "it's my turn" shouldn't be enough to stop a president getting elected. the ex-prime minister in the UK literally said he wanted to be PM because he'd be “quite good at it" and still got elected. he also hosed a pig shows how lovely you have to be not to be elected to public office in this day and age
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
I almost typed out "wish I lived in England so I could follow their dopey politics too" but that would be a lie soz not soz
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
So is the super delegate system basically what the electoral college is for the national election?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:So is the super delegate system basically what the electoral college is for the national election? Not really. when you cast your vote, you are voting for a regular delegate that is locked in to pull the lever at the convention for whoever won the popular vote in that district. These delegates are more like the electoral college folks. Super delegates are more like career political organizers that get to vote however they want at the convention. They can be wined, dined, courted, and cajoled. In fact, some level of 'courting' is expected in lots of cases. Their votes are given just as much weight as the guys you voted to send, but they have no reason to care what you want. They were originally put in place for the reasons Neeto said above, but they have evolved into what they are now.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
seems like a pretty effin lovely system to me. if im putting the thing together, id prefer to risk my party getting creamed cause the people picked a stinker, rather than baking in a caste of party apparatchiks
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Elpato posted:Not really. when you cast your vote, you are voting for a regular delegate that is locked in to pull the lever at the convention for whoever won the popular vote in that district. These delegates are more like the electoral college folks. In a way, it's a popularity vote
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
The republican primary system came out looking squeaky clean, because it did not use a superdelagate system, nor did it have any sort of bias towards a candidate. As shown by Trump showing up out of nowhere and becoming the republican nominee despite the party elite speaking out publicly against Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Soup du Journey posted:seems like a pretty effin lovely system to me. if im putting the thing together, id prefer to risk my party getting creamed cause the people picked a stinker, rather than baking in a caste of party apparatchiks the system is good if they did what they were put in place to do. the super delegates should've enshrined bernie as the candidate as the voters picked the weaker general election candidate (also them all pledging for clinton before the first primary already gave the illusion she had an insurmountable lead from the word go).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:55
|
|