He might. And I hope he does, because I really can’t stand Clinton or what she represents. Something’s gotta change somewhere.
3 Likes
Oh and he could definitely still win. There is no reason for a Sanders supporter to give Clinton the time of day until it’s all done & said. Putting aside the fact that there are still enough delegates available, neither on is a spring chicken, though Sanders is in better health. People that see a done deal are just incorrect regardless of projections or otherwise.
2 Likes
Not doubting you, but haven’t heard about this. How is Mrs. Clinton in bad health?
Not suggesting she’s in a bad way, rather that Sanders is in good shape even accounting for his years senior to her. The reports of Clinton stumbling are probably from the GOP spin farms AFAIK, I’ve never seen a link I would click on the subject, since they lead to breitbart & the like.
Ah. Well, if I believed in souls, I’d certainly say it’s obvious that his in better health. His conscience too. I do believe in a conscience, except for in people like Mrs Clinton, who seems to have been born without one.
3 Likes
Please note that I didn’t say he would or even should win, I also didn’t say he is winning. I only meant to say that basing his chances of winning on the current political climate is the wrong way to look at him. And it’s probably why polling is shit.
Looking at this like a horse race isn’t helping anybody but the bookies.
But we’re likely talking past each other now. Hope I managed to make my point 
2 Likes
“Momentum” hasn’t been much of a factor in this cycle. Pretty much every narrower than expected loss or win from Bernie has supposedly presaged momentum. And a week later we see the same thing. The whole concept is basically built around the idea that wins or shows of continual improvement lead to increased media coverage and voter confidence. I understand there’s certainly an effect there. But along with “narrative” I really think its more of a self congratulatory, self important, media concept pushed by pundits. “Look at how important we are! CHASE OUT ATTENTION”. Bernie wins when there’s high turn out. But Bernie doesn’t win by margins large enough to effect the distribution of delegates or shift the popular vote too much, even when there is high turn out. He’s got a better chance of doing that going forward. But I’m not seeing a clear indication on how fast or pervasively he can make it happen.
Driving increased turn out at this stage is sort of a double edged sword. There’s always the chance you’ll drive just as many people who want to vote against you as for you. This seems to be what’s happening with Trump. The general breakdown of percentages in most cases lines up pretty well with expectations based on polling from before voting actually started. Around 35ish% of Republican primary voters, occasionally breaking out to a bare plurality. He’s getting more votes than anyone else in that race (and anyone overall except Hillary), but he’s certainly not getting a majority of votes. Despite the vastly increased voter turn out that he’s driving. The exception being open primaries/caucuses where a genuine lead on his part with non-GOP registered voters pushes him outside his little box. I’m starting to wonder if that’s a factor for Bernie. But frankly the media’s obsession with licking Trumps taint is crowding out quality coverage of the DNC contest. I actually have trouble finding the Democratic primary results some weeks, particularly specifics. And when I do find coverage its either 90% half assed stories about Hillary’s presumed win, or 90% bonkers rage about how Bernie is magic. Depending on the venue I’m looking at.
Bernie would likely make a terrible VP. Effective VPs these days are usually congressional lifers (which yeah Bernie pretty much is), who are adept at working the system as it is and pressuring congress. Bernie shows no interest in that, and doesn’t have much history actually doing any of that.
Welcome to president Trump. One of the major ways the left could fuck up the clear advantage the right is handing them this year (as well as a slight demographic advantage that would exist anyway) is to split the vote. Hell Bloomberg just publicly announced exactly that when he told everyone why he wasn’t interested in running. More viable parties would be nice. But the 2 party system is pretty embedded in the US, it would take major changes to how elections are handled, and how legislatures are structured to make additional parties work. And if you look at places where many parties are the rule (often parliamentary systems) those smaller weaker parties outside your main two or three need to form coalitions with other parties in order to create effective governments. In other words a viable left wing 3rd party would still in most cases have to work with (and often subservient to) the DNC. Basically what you’d be looking at is the centrist and leftist wings of the DNC bifurcating from each other. And having far less incentive to work with one another. At a time when that particular party is stable, moving left, and heading towards a definite demographic advantage as the nation itself starts to shift left. Viable (ish) 3rd parties in US politics tend to crop up when one of the major parties starts to collapse and loose its hold on its constituency. That’s not what it looks like on the DNC side. But it does look eerily similar to what’s happening in GOP land.
Pushing for 3rd parties and independents from the left could definitely be part of what I’m talking about though. A concerted effort to shift the tables leftward in the House and States. But a 3rd party or Independent presidential run by Bernie just makes him a spoiler candidate. Sadly the only move if your a progressive or liberal at the moment is to vote for whoever the DNC puts up. Any other option is basically the same as voting for the conservative candidate. But that’s polarized politics for you.
1 Like
Third party doesn’t have to be at a Presidential level.
Think people like Kshama Sawant in Seattle. Plenty of scope for proper socialists in more liberal areas to beat out some of the more centrist Dems at city and state levels, if not congress districts.
1 Like
And that’s what my last bit was about. That could (and I think should) be an important part of pushing back against Republican/conservative control in a lot of areas. Breaking an unfair advantage for the GOP doesn’t necessarily require the election of more Democrats. Just fewer Republicans. And a lot of the states, counties, towns, and congressional districts I’m taking about are so locked into a conservative culture that the Dems there aren’t terribly different than Republicans. Far more so than politicians at the national level (excluding The House perhaps).
In terms of proper socialists: I’d be cautious with that. There are a lot of flavors of socialist. I think a shift (back) towards social democracy is probably pretty good for us. But that doesn’t necessarily mean every self described socialist, or even the Socialist party, are worth supporting. I’ve met some god damned wacky socialists running for office or campaigning at the state and local level. Kshama Sawant is an excellent model for the sort of not a Republicrat sort of politician we need more of at these levels of government though. She seems like good people.
1 Like
Absolutely!
2 Likes
Derp Derp, they got’s these rules ya heard? If Sanders doesn’t get the nom, he’s not in this race, it isn’t possible for him to split the vote in 2016. You missed the part of Bloomberg’s announcement regarding the timing of his decision.
Third parties aren’t ruled out in the current system, it takes a party willing to lose for a long time to eventually gain the occasional balance of power which would be the harbinger of their actual arrival. Subservience isn’t required, not by a long, long shot. All that is required is the ability to do what Most Americans bemoan the lack of, and that is compromise in policy.
In this interest, yes, a centrist and left party, which would actually allow you a semblance of full spectrum representation, although that would be better had with a split on the other side as well, which is not unthinkable given the gyrations the current GOP is going through trying to figure out what bathroom to use.
You don’t see cracks on the DNC side? You aren’t looking. Many, many left-wing people feel wholly unrepresented and the evidence of a move left in the USA is what? One two-term President?
[quote=“Ryuthrowsstuff, post:108, topic:74790”]
Pushing for 3rd parties and independents from the left could definitely be part of what I’m talking about though. A concerted effort to shift the tables leftward in the House and States. But a 3rd party or Independent presidential run by Bernie just makes him a spoiler candidate. Sadly the only move if your a progressive or liberal at the moment is to vote for whoever the DNC puts up. Any other option is basically the same as voting for the conservative candidate. But that’s polarized politics for you.[/quote]
A concerted effort to do things down vote just spins the same machine around again as that effort is countered elsewhere, particularly when this election, the general, is far from decided. Yeah, the Dems will focus down stream if they lose the White House, so what else is new? Not that. Fact remains that the Dems have been dragged right and are usually at their leftest only when they need the votes, just like any centrist party, and just like any centrist party, they become one of two parties vying for elected office and little else. A luxury they can most easily afford in a two-party system.
Your sadly is deference to difficulty. I do admit it is hard to accomplish much when you can’t function for throwing your hands up in the air constantly.
1 Like
Do we know this? I haven’t heard him affirmatively state either way what his position is. I don’t think it’s “stupidity” that’s at issue here: it’s egoism. Ralph Nader is a brilliant man. But his egoism doomed America (and the Free World) to George Bush’s two goddamned terms.
1 Like
It’s not even an option. He can’t get on the ballot in all 50 states anymore, at least 2 will prohibit him from being on the ballot*, many ballot access deadlines have passed, the requirements for independents in what few states remain wouldn’t be too big a deal, large payments or large petitions… but considering how he’d have to rely on write-in votes in many states, and pay to have those tallied or lose them, it’s a shit long list of other problems too from the FEC for his finances…
Yes, we know he’s smart enough not to run when the chances of success are precisely Zero for the fact of his not being on a majority of ballots. The man is exceptionally intelligent as is shown by his accomplishments to date.
*if he loses to Clinton
3 Likes
The Iraq War wasn’t an embarrassment? How about that Libya intervention?
1 Like
Hey now, if Albright can call half a million dead children a price worth paying in the first round in Iraq, then whatever number of children the second round in Iraq killed is nothing to be ashamed of… I guess?
2 Likes
The DNC has moved left. Look at where they sit now, and the policies they propose support and have passed in the last 10 years as compared to the 90’s. Its plain on its face. In the 90’s Hillary was attacked as dangerous radical leftist, now she’s lamented as a centrist boor (and by the Bernie camp as some sort of crypto-conservative). But in terms of the country moving left the evidence is in a bevy a research about changing demographics. Increased non-white populations, particularly among groups that tend to vote left or progressive. Survey’s showing falling religiosity in the general populace, particularly among the young. Rapidly increasing numbers in terms of support for progressive positions like gay marriage, ending the drug war etc.
A concerted effort at shaking things up at the sub federal level and in the house isn’t just a consolation prize for whoever loses. The GOP has a near lock in the house and almost airtight control of a huge number of states, counties, towns etc. And not because they simply enjoy more support there. A long standing effort in gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other undemocratic tactics have lead to the GOP winning offices in excess of their actual support within the populace.They achieve this even in states/areas where support for them is low enough that they can’t appreciably shift Presidential or Senate voting to the right. There’s been little luck challenging that at court. It can’t be changed legislatively while they still maintain that control. And redistricting doesn’t happen again until the new census comes out in 2020. Which represents both an opportunity for neutral redistricting and will require all this shit to acknowledge new Democrat/left friendly demographic changes (changes that are happening now but expected to accelerate over the next 10 years). And this is not something any president can directly effect. Because almost every aspect of it is controlled and instituted by sate governments. This is in large part where our stalled out federal government comes from. As the country as a whole country has shifts left, it becomes easier and more likely to see left wing wins in presidential elections and left wing majorities in the senate. But in the House, states and further down the lane their is enough specifically GOP embedded control to prevent a mandate and continue with the obstruction we’ve seen under Obama. Voter turn out alone likely can’t over come it. When the GOP has 5 seats that are a sure thing it doesn’t matter how many people show up of whatever affiliation to vote for the 1 seat that has a chance of going another way. Especially when everyone on the ground is actively colluding to deny those new arrivals their constitutional right to vote.
So there was little chance of making much progress on that front during this election cycle. Or the next midterms. BUT Scalia just died, and a siting democratic president gets to nominate his successor. Even if the GOP lead Congress can stall that out it is likely we’ll see them lose the election and get a leftward shift on The Supreme Court. Meaning progress on challenging this shit in court before 2020 rolls around is now eminently possible. At this point Trump is likely to be the GOP nominee, but there’s still a (small) chance Cruz could take it. Since they both announced their campaigns there have been serious concerns (especially within the GOP, apparently their internal polling is frightening) that both could cause serious damage to Republican returns in down ballot races. To the point where there was a very public debate about which would do more damage. National polling of the whole electorate seems to bear that out. And the GOP’s complete clusterfuck of infighting and lack of a single sensible person at the national level is hurting them rather than helping them. This opens up a chance to make small gains in those down ballot areas, which makes it easier and more possible to consolidate those gains and take advantage of the demographic shift over the next 10 years. That’s the nitty gritty of creating a sustained progressive trend in this nation’s governance. And its probably the only way any left wing administration makes any legitimate progress during their next presidency.
And frankly I’ve been hearing all my life about how the Democratic party is on the verge of collapse. Almost exclusively from panicky leftists. There are stresses there. But the debates within that party, and the dynamics in play in the nation at large look nothing like the sort of struggles that typically lead to a party collapse or re-alignment. The GOP’s current problems definitely do.
2 Likes
Not that old shit again. If Gore had been further to the left, that is, more like a real democrat, he would’ve won some of the votes Nader got, and probably would’ve won. Or if the republicans hadn’t cheated, including voter suppression and stopping the vote count. Hearing people blame Nader of all people for Bush still makes me sick.
13 Likes
There are too many “M” states!
not plausible unless the D Party ceases to exist.
Hillary OTOH? What if she loses the endorsement?
Or if the DNC had not shut Nader out of the debates. The DNC incited his rage against them, just like they are inciting my rage against them this time by serving up Hillary on the half shell and Bernie shoved into a back alley after each debate.
4 Likes
