|
Skyl3lazer posted:But seriously for all the hand-wringing about how 'those teenage bernouts just don't get REALITY' shouldn't our goal be to have that idealized political system?
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:I don't want a political system that can be easily impacted by a bunch of people fresh out of the womb who are constantly melting down because numbers are difficult. I too think that those with the most stake in the system should have the least voice in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:It isn't about executive power (and you know it isn't), it's about having A) A primary system where the merit of a candidate wins elections, rather than a huge corporate machine and B) Once elected, a candidate can actually execute their agenda if it's something that the people-at-large support. Bernie's campaign says "elect me and everything will be fine". You can tell this is true because until recently he didn't care about down-ticket races at all. If you want the President to solve all your issues, you must be comfortable with giving the President lots of power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
No that's pretty much right. A two person race where everything is proportional means that if you're that far behind you've been absolutely blown out in a number of important races. That's terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Sounds like you want a populist President. Have you considered Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Basically there is no reason for a race that's functionally been 2 people since the start in the DNC primary system to be anything but neck and neck other than one opponent sucks
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I too think that those with the most stake in the system should have the least voice in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:If this is sincere you must be an autist. It isn't!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You can tell this is true because until recently he didn't care about down-ticket races at all. This is a straight up Hillary talking point. Bernie has been talking about a largescale political movement (his revolution) since day one. The downticket race bitching only showed up when Bernie proved that he could match Clinton in fundraising without sPAC donations. Let's also not forget that Hillary has been pilfering local election funds for her own campaign as well, how's that for caring about the downticket?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
the moment bernie drops out, clinton will tear off her mask and reveal that she was ronald reagan all along. she'll then break all the campaign promises and run the country into the ground out of spite. this is clearly something that will happen and not a paranoid fantasy with little basis in reality Harlock posted:Sounds like you want a populist President. Have you considered Donald Trump. populism is literally the worst
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Basically there is no reason for a race that's functionally been 2 people since the start in the DNC primary system to be anything but neck and neck other than one opponent sucks Or simply lacks appeal among a strong plurality if not outright majority of the party he's running in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:This is a straight up Hillary talking point. Bernie has been talking about a largescale political movement (his revolution) since day one. The downticket race bitching only showed up when Bernie proved that he could match Clinton in fundraising without sPAC donations. Let's also not forget that Hillary has been pilfering local election funds for her own campaign as well, how's that for caring about the downticket? melt nicedown
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Goetta posted:It isn't!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:melt nicedown
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Contested Democratic primary elections (ie no incumbent) in the modern era. I'm sticking the modern line at 1980 because the Democratic party pre-1980 was a very different creature than it is today. 2016 2008 2004 2000 1992 1988 1984 We've got 7 data points. Let's walk through them as well as the non-contested elections. 2016 Hillary is currently leading 1,929 delegates to 1,246, counting super delegates. That's a 683 delegate lead. Keep in mind because the race currently isn't over that number is expected to increase. 2012 Doesn't count, Obama is incumbent. 2008 Obama won 2,285.5 to 1,973 for a net win by 312.5 delegates. Hillary is currently beating that. 2004 Kerry won with 2,573.5 delegates. Edwards was 2nd with only 559, so Kerry won by almost 2,000 delegates. However, that race was over by Super Tuesday and there was no strong competition beyond that. 2000 Gore won with 3,007 delegates. Bradley got 522, so Gore won by even more than Kerry. This was basically not even a race as Gore won every single state and was essentially running as an incumbent. 1996 Doesn't count, Clinton is incumbent. 1992 Bill Clinton wins with 3,372 delegates, next closest is Jerry Brown with 596 delegates. That's a 2,776 delegate win. Again, this race was pretty much over by Super Tuesday so I'd look at it with a grain of salt. 1988 Dukkakis wins with 1,792 delegates. Jesse Jackson has 1,023 delegates and comes in 2nd for a net win by 769 delegates. This is the closest analogue to this election in terms of delegates. Dukkakis was always going to win, but Jackson ran a good campaign to his left. 1984 Mondale wins with 1,606 delegates, Gary Hart comes in 2nd with 1,164 delegates, a net win by 442 delegates. This was a strange one as Mondale won almost the whole East while Hart won everything West of the Mississippi. Beyond this you can't do any comparisons as the modern primary system didn't exist. So looking at it, it looks like Hillary is right in line with what typically happens in a contest race (84, 88, 08) but is under performing in blowout elections (92, 00, 04).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:This is a straight up Hillary talking point. Bernie has been talking about a largescale political movement (his revolution) since day one. Yes, and the crux of that revolution is that he's leading the charge. "Vote for me and everything will be fine. Downticket? Uh, I guess vote for the Dem, I haven't endorsed anyone specific".
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
bernie has done essentially nothing his entire career to elect democrats but i'm sure this time is different
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:hillary has done essentially nothing her entire career to support working families but i'm sure this time is different
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, and the crux of that revolution is that he's leading the charge. "Vote for me and everything will be fine. Downticket? Uh, I guess vote for the Dem, I haven't endorsed anyone specific". why would he endorse any member of such a corrupt and terrible party?? Bernie is going to win and take us all to socialist fantasy land and none of the democrats can come. [especially those <insert sexist insult here> DWS and HRC.]
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Nice Meltdown
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, and the crux of that revolution is that he's leading the charge. "Vote for me and everything will be fine. Downticket? Uh, I guess vote for the Dem, I haven't endorsed anyone specific". Absent an actual revolution with blood on the streets, the way to really accomplish your goals is through a system of government spelled out in the constitution, which means downballot races. What Sanders is describing when he talks about you a political revolution is pure fiction outside an actual bloody uprising. Whether he understands this or not is up for debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
so i'll take that as conceding that bernie does not care about down ticket democrats
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:so i'll take that as conceding that bernie does not care about down ticket democrats The ideologically pure concede nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:A 55/45 electoral split is a blowout.. However, the difference in delegates allocated ends up not being that big. In New York, Hillary won by 16 points yet netted only +30 delegates. I'm not arguing that she's not winning but to say that it's a complete blowout seems like an exaggeration. Complete blowout seems like it would mean Martin Omalley or Chafee or all of the Republican candidates that are barely hanging on or dropped out months ago. I was only  about your choice of adjective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
actually, martin o'malley is winning our hearts and bodies
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:bernie has done essentially nothing his entire career to elect democrats but i'm sure this time is different You know, for someone who wasn't a democrat, he actually did a lot
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Mom got the best representation in those anime drawing from a while back imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Basically there is no reason for a race that's functionally been 2 people since the start in the DNC primary system to be anything but neck and neck other than one opponent sucks It can be the opposite, that one contender is really powerful. Which is probably what's happening this time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:You know, for someone who wasn't a democrat, he actually did a lot like what? what did he do besides pay his dscc dues?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Dr_0ctag0n posted:I'm not arguing that she's not winning but to say that it's a complete blowout seems like an exaggeration. Complete blowout seems like it would mean Martin Omalley or Chafee or all of the Republican candidates that are barely hanging on or dropped out months ago. I was only It seems close only because Bernie is still in it, and still getting delegates. In most other races, the challenger would have dropped out by now and all the rest of the delegates would have gone to the leader by default. With proportional allocation of delegates, he's still going to get some no matter what happens with the popular vote as long as he stays in the race. However, he is, in fact, way behind and has been way behind for a long time. Her lead is insurmountable. We could call it close if he still had a chance. Note that I'm not saying he should drop out, though. The more he makes Hillary work, the better candidate she'll be in the GE. I think Obama was better for Hillary sticking it out in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Basically there is no reason for a race that's functionally been 2 people since the start in the DNC primary system to be anything but neck and neck other than one opponent sucks So Hillary sucks then? Weird that you're changing your tune this late in the Primary, but Ok. Concerned Citizen posted:like what? what did he do besides pay his dscc dues? I'm sure he's done nothing and that's why the Democrats have given him Senate Chairmanships despite him not being a Democrat. Makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Give me your tired, your college poor, your animes https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724993336000532480
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Harlock posted:Give me your tired, your college poor, your animes That's so transparent it hurts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Harlock posted:Give me your tired, your college poor, your animes https://twitter.com/thislovedrought/status/724993350164615168
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Harlock posted:Give me your tired, your college poor, your animes You idiot you're not supposed to say what you want! Just keep implying it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Deki posted:I'm sure he's done nothing and that's why the Democrats have given him Senate Chairmanships despite him not being a Democrat. Makes perfect sense. can you actually point out something he's ever done? the only campaign event i can think of was the time he went to chicago for chuy. as far as chairs go - for democrats, they're selected based on seniority within a committee. the longest-serving member on a committee that doesn't hold a chair in a different committee gets it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Bernie is going to lose, he couldn't have implemented his policies, and he didn't pay enough attention to down-ticket races. All of that is true but jesus christ you guys are insufferably condescending about young people being idealistic. It's especially annoying when what they want isn't some utopic world that has never and can never exist, it's basically a centrist European government. This is why the dem party is loving useless. Young people starting to become politically engaged in our party? loving idiot children, they are! Grandpas all up in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
i think it's great that young people are engaged with bernie sanders. it's the dumb ones i don't like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Fidel Castronaut posted:Bernie is going to lose, he couldn't have implemented his policies, and he didn't pay enough attention to down-ticket races. All of that is true but jesus christ you guys are insufferably condescending about young people being idealistic. It's especially annoying when what they want isn't some utopic world that has never and can never exist, it's basically a centrist European government. Centrist European Governments have multi-payer health care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Fidel Castronaut posted:Bernie is going to lose, he couldn't have implemented his policies, and he didn't pay enough attention to down-ticket races. All of that is true but jesus christ you guys are insufferably condescending about young people being idealistic. It's especially annoying when what they want isn't some utopic world that has never and can never exist, it's basically a centrist European government. This is why the dem party is loving useless. Young people starting to become politically engaged in our party? loving idiot children, they are! Grandpas all up in this thread. I think the Democratic Party listened to idealistic young voters in 2008 with the election of Obama and it worked out pretty well. This time around, the idealism is being channeled into the wrong candidate for the wrong reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 17:38
|
|