Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really need to stop whining about these caucuses, its getting pathetic. I know for a fact I would never bother to vote in a meaningless primary when my candidate had already won. Its cringe worthy the way you moan about these caucuses but were silent about them when Hillary won Iowa and Nevada caucuses (that time the attitude was that the elderly saw it as a social event in those states and the overwhelming majority of caucus goers were older voters, favoring Hillary). Then Sanders began winning caucuses and the whining began.
I dont know what your issue is really. The big money and special interests love the idea of party bosses and media executives ramming a candidate down the throat of the people. Make the candidates as dependent on big media and big money as possible and you will get your will. You've called for one day national primary which is basically a gift to the richest and most powerful people in the country, as they would be in total control over who will win such a "contest" and outsiders representing the peopple wont stand a snowball's chance in hell. That is your "democracy".
I am not whining, just pointing how Burn and his supporters are so hypocritical and talk about democracy only when it suits his narrative.
more people voted in the Washington primary than ANY contest in May.
If ur candidate doesnt like the Democratic Party, then he shouldn't have joined! He can run as an independent and refrain from acting like a complete jerk playing professional victim to pander for votes. He is one of the most horrible candidates I have ever seen!
He is nothing different from a regular politician except he utilizes and infuriates people's anger for his own benefit.
The Clintons' updated upcoming state visits:
Hillary Clinton : Nevada -> California -> New York -> New Jersey -> Massachusetts -> Pennsylvania -> California
Bill Clinton :
Chelsea Clinton : New York
I am not whining, just pointing how Burn and his supporters are so hypocritical and talk about democracy only when it suits his narrative.
more people voted in the Washington primary than ANY contest in May.
If ur candidate doesnt like the Democratic Party, then he shouldn't have joined! He can run as an independent and refrain from acting like a complete jerk playing professional victim to pander for votes. He is one of the most horrible candidates I have ever seen!
He is nothing different from a regular politician except he utilizes and infuriates people's anger for his own benefit.
By this logic, all the countries with mandatory voting are the most democratic in the world. Your idea of democracy is absurd.
A very detailed fivethirtyeight analysis of the Democratic primary race, using demographic models to simulate different scenarios of primary vs caucus and open vs closed.
Quote:
What would happen if the primary system conformed to each candidate’s best-case scenario? (All closed primaries for Clinton and all caucuses open to independent voters for Sanders.) If every state held a closed primary, Clinton would beat Sanders by 19 percentage points and have a 654 elected delegate advantage, we estimate. If, however, each state held an open caucus, Sanders would beat Clinton by 22 percentage points nationwide and have a 496 elected delegate lead. Of course, neither of those scenarios would happen.
Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning.
A very detailed fivethirtyeight analysis of the Democratic primary race, using demographic models to simulate different scenarios of primary vs caucus and open vs closed.
[url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/]The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders[/url]
Good article. Bernie and his campaign manager will never admit that the caucus system favors him. One older woman who was interviewed said she was actually afraid to attend a caucus because she's timid and doesn't want to debate with people who have different viewpoints, especially young radicals. Remember when a young woman in Iowa said the F word on live TV? I don't know if she was a Bernie or Hillary supporter, but a lot of folks don't want to be around that type of atmosphere and prefer voting quickly and anonymously. In any case, the 2 recent primaries in Nebraska and Washington might not mean anything to Sander supporters, but for me it discredits his claim that he wins when more people vote.
Just curious how this is supposed to play out in the real world - is a sitting Democratic politician allowed to endorse the candidate of their choice before their state holds its primary? What if they say that they aren't officially saying they would vote for them at the convention?
Or are you saying incumbents and other party officials should no longer be allowed to endorse a candidate, campaign for them, appear with them, etc. as is and has been customary probably since we first started having presidential elections back in the 1700s and 1800s.
No, but perhaps the superdelegate count shouldn't be reported by the media at the beginning of the race. OTOH, superdelegates can always change their votes, and if Bernie had won the majority of the popular vote and pledged delegates, there is no doubt in my mind that many who support Hillary would have changed their votes. I saw interviews with superdelegates like Ed Rendell and Michael Bennett in which both said they'd back Bernie 100% if he was chosen by the voters, but he wasn't. Even Bill Clinton said he'd support Bernie if he passed Hillary in pledged delegates and won the majority of the popular vote.
Regarding endorsements, Sanders is a sitting Senator and a popular presidential candidate, and he just endorsed Tim Canova in FL, so I guess the answer is no. Just to elaborate, no matter how corrupt Washington is, I have a difficult time believing out of 535 members of Congress, only Bernie Sanders and his supporters are squeaky clean. There are 100 U.S. Senators and only 1 (Jeff Merkely) endorsed Bernie. (actually there are 2, if you count Bernie Sanders. There are 435 members of the House and only 9 endorsed Bernie AFAIK. I don't know if these lists are accurate and up-to-date, but I find it difficult to believe everyone else has been bought & paid for and are members of the evil establishment that Bernie has been railing against.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign_endor sements,_2016"]List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[/URL]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endo rsements,_2016"]List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[/URL]
I am not whining, just pointing how Burn and his supporters are so hypocritical and talk about democracy only when it suits his narrative.
I've always been one to object when I sense someone is misrepresenting the truth for purposes of their agenda, whatever it may be, but on the other hand..., don't most people walk and talk according to what "suits their narrative?" Might say the alternative is something like "spitting in the wind."
I don't know if these lists are accurate and up-to-date, but I find it difficult to believe everyone else has been bought & paid for and are members of the evil establishment that Bernie has been railing against.
I am equally skeptical when it comes to branding politicians as we all love to do in America, according to our political and/or partisan bias of course...
Average Americans don't really have any idea what it is to swim in political waters at the state and national level. I think if we did, if we understood what it takes to get voter attention in the first place, secure the necessary backing and financing to wage let alone win campaigns for election, then to get anything done by way of "give and take," I suspect we would have a little different perspective about who is "bought and sold" rather than just brokering our interests as most of us would have to do if we too were in office.
Don't get me wrong, I am the first one to point at the number one problem of money in our system, but I also know that you simply can't be a mud wrestler without getting muddy. We need to be forever vigilant and watchful of corruption and abuse of public trust, but on the other hand we've also got to be reasonable when it comes to the line these politicians must walk given the political system they compete within, whether they like the rules or not, knowing full well you "just can't please all the people all the time."
It's also true you just can't win any game you're not willing to play...
fwiw, I agree with not reporting superdelegate counts particularly during the early stages, and I've got many posts here saying just that - criticizing when the media would say "Well, Bernie won this state but because of SDs, he and Hillary split the delegates." Because that does muddy the waters and in a sense, makes people count SDs twice, because there's a running tally but then the media was making it seem like they were also being awarded state by state as the primaries took place.
I think SDs should be allowed to endorse and campaign, and it's ok to track how many SDs support each candidate, but when the delegate counts are reported, particularly state by state, it should be JUST the pledged delegates.
However, by this point in the campaign, I do think they are relevant in terms of when the leading candidate is going to have more than 50%, exactly as was the case in 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are 435 members of the House and only 9 endorsed Bernie AFAIK. I don't know if these lists are accurate and up-to-date, but I find it difficult to believe everyone else has been bought & paid for and are members of the evil establishment that Bernie has been railing against.