Forgive me if I misunderstand, but it kind of seems like you just explained why the entire delegate system is undemocratic.
20 Likes
Kansas has vote for the democratic nominee correctly for the last 50 years, also.
2 Likes
Well, they have the opportunity to be, but doing so would doom the party for decades.
It doesnāt help that some very conservative lobbyists are among the super-delegates.
4 Likes
see, money isnāt everything in politics. Thereās also ass-kissing.
6 Likes
But from that post I deduce you are either a Republican or a Hilary supporter, both camps of which support bankers and their ācream off the money you send usā business patent.
6 Likes
For those supporting democratic socialism via Sanders, voting, donations and GOTV probably correlate to engaging additional social justice issues. The donations are likely the thin edge of the phenomenon measured.
2 Likes
Nope, thatās pretty much my point. People throw the word ādemocraticā and āundemocraticā around all the time but rarely understand that the whole system is not intended to be a democracy. Weāre a republic, where we elect people to make decisions and take actions for us instead of voting directly for them. We were designed at the state and national level to be republics and not democracies because our founders didnāt trust the masses to make good choices. Occasionally thereās a ballot question but even most of those are non-binding or nebulous in nature.
For instance, very few people in the United States have ever cast a ballot for President. We have this thing called the Electoral College we vote for every four years, and the folks we elect to the EC vote for President. Thatās why Al Gore had more people cast a ballot for his electors but George Bush got to hang in the White House for the next eight years.
The nomination process is the most kerflunked non-democratic process there is. The caucuses are done differently in each state that does them, and even then some of the folks arenāt required to vote the way their caucus worked. The nomination is usually sewn up by the time we get a little more than halfway through, so people who live in states like New Jersey (my state) rarely have a say in the selection. Then we get to the convention and if no one has actually locked it up there can be vote after vote after vote where delegates are allowed to switch candidates.
For the Democratic side the vast majority of the early primaries are in states that vote for the other party for President, so the folks who pick the Democratic nominee arenāt usually going to be the same people who pick the electors for the Electoral College in the fall.
So, yeah, the United States is not a democracy, and the parts of it that resemble a democracy are usually so weirdly designed as to be ā¦ undemocratic.
16 Likes
The two terms are not incompatible. The USA is a democracy and a republic. Itās just not a direct democracy.
13 Likes
Arguably Sanders momentum is continuing to grow. Small dollar donations are a pure measure of such momentum, but by no means the only measure. Votes and delegates by far more important ā¦ but equally important is the shape of the race in opposition. What is clear is that neither voters nor donors have yet given up on Bern and coronated Hill. Not yet.
Speaking as one who has already cast my vote for Sanders, in a state where he was defeated heartily ā¦ I take great fascination in the (1) distribution of votes for him vs Clinton by state; (2) states where Sanders and Cruz won; (3) states where Clinton crushed Sanders.
Bernie is doing well in northern states. It seems the closer the proximity to Canada, the better he does. Maine today should continue that trend. I would associate neither Oklahoma nor Kansas with progressivism, but Bernie clearly galvanized the progressive wing of the party in those states. That is interesting and noteworthy. Both went for Cruz. VT, NH, CO, MN are all historically progressive states. OK, KS, NE not so much. Bernie should have 3 of 4 wins on a state level (though not a delegate level) since Hillās anointment on Super Tuesday. Sanders could sweep the West Coast, if he can stay in long enough to be viable when California finally votes. Why should he give up at this stage?
Hillary dominates in the Deep South. Bill was the Bubba President ā¦ but more importantly knowing a little about the South ā itās stuck in time. What I think is democrats in the South do not believe America is ready for Bernie, and they probably have heard less of his message. Examining the demographics where he does well along age and income lines in other states, Bernie loses those demographics in the South because those folks are surrounded by backwards and couldnāt envision Sanders winning as President, so they stay safe with a Hillary vote. The further North you get, the more voters can imagine a Sanders vs. GOP matchup as being a better matchup. At this point in the race, it should come down to matchups.
There is a false belief that Clinton would do better in the general election against Trump (or any other Republican nominee). It is highly likely that Trump would eat her alive. Too many skeletons and hypocrisy within the Clinton past (and present) as fodder for Trump. Too many people who will never vote for another Clinton or who donāt want to continue the status quo of Obama policies. In stark contrast, Sanders would so clearly offer a principled alternative to Trump that swing voters would likely give him a chance, despite his crazy leftwing ideas. Bernie matches up against Trump or Cruz better than Hillary. It is self evident. Neither of them will be the gentleman that Sanders has been this primary cycle, and despite her spin there does appear to be an indictment hanging over her head (whether or not there actually is one).
Perhaps if it comes down to Clinton v Trump, the political establishment may find a way to take a French play out of the book and ask swing voters to pinch their noses and vote for Hillary ā¦ and it might work. But I for one, would still much prefer Sanders to decimate Trump in the general election than to pinch my nose and vote for another Clinton. The first Clinton administration rode an economic wave outside their control that to this day left them well regarded by rank and file and yet they enacted a sweeping set of policies around mandatory minimums, drug policy and deregulation that got us into the mess we are in today. Make no mistake in that.
24 Likes
Yeah, HAVING more money is how you become a President 
1 Like
If principles mattered to the degree you think, then why would Trump or Clinton be a conversation? Trump is winning because he is a short-fingered vulgarian, and Clinton is winning because the business as usual DNC is not nearly as hated as the Tea Party or business as usual GOP. Itās extremely simple and uncomplicated this year.
2 Likes
Iām 42 years old and Iāve voted in every primary, every mid-term and every local election since I was 18. Bernie Sanders is the candidate Iāve been waiting my whole life to vote for. I fear Iāll never have the opportunity to vote for someone like him ever again. Iāve never donated to a candidate before.
Iāve also volunteered to the first candidate in my lifetime. This is it. Hillary canāt win against Trump (especially if the FBI comes knocking). I was surprised to see Iāve donated over $980 to him over the last 4 months (all under $50 per donation). Itās not that I can afford it, itās that I canāt afford not to.
34 Likes
Trump is riding his less than 40% popular vote as a repudiation of business as usual. So is Bernie. Faced head-to-head, I have to believe Americans would make the sensible choice.
Trump v Clinton, and I could see myself voting for Trump just to hasten the decline. I donāt know if I could have it on my conscience, and America loses in such an election. Say what you will about Donald but he is clearly outside the political establishment. This election cycle is so obviously about rejection of the oligarchy. The democrats who have yet to vote need to seize this opportunity for real reform, while the opposition is batshit crazy. Chances like this come along once in a lifetime.
11 Likes
GOP 'ClownShow"! You nailed it, man!
What youāre describing is also taking choice away from the voting populace - by definition. Itās completely stacked against outsiders like Sanders, and for people who already have a lot of history and influence - like Clinton. No matter how āsmallā an influence it is (and with her former campaign co-chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in charge of the DNC, thereās a lot more influence than that going on this cycle), itās enough in a close election to swing it a particular way.
7 Likes
I think this is one of those cases where one can say with absolute confidence āYou donāt know thatā.
17 Likes
I live in California, land of the āYour vote doesnāt matter in the primary,ā but Iām hoping that changes this year. Perhaps itās my age/demographics, but Iāve not personally spoken with anyone who is interested in voting for Clinton. I believe that Sanders is actually ahead here, and we certainly do have a lot of delegatesā¦
12 Likes
Ah, accelerationism. Has that ever actually worked in the past?
6 Likes
Isnāt (number of donators to a candidate) <= (number of voters for candidate)? In which case, then Sanders can expect a lot of votes.
That sounds like conspiracy to commitā¦ I donāt know, some kind of fraud?
