I must say, for a gawker offshoot, I’m enjoying the comments on that article more than usual. I especially like this one:
However you feel about it, it’s sort of refreshing to see Republicans
trying to disenfranchise their own supporters for a change.
I suppose there is an argument to be made for “people who dedicate their entire professional lives to their party should have more of a say in the candidate selection than individual voters.”
I think the real frustration comes when voters are given the impression that the decision is up to them only to later learn that it’s more of a “thanks for that suggestion, we’ll take that under consideration” kind of deal.
"So true. If you don’t like the result of something, and you think you
know better, you should spend all your time blocking the will of the
majority. Great idea. Really fucking served us well the past eight
years. "
Seems this is the real GOP raison d’etre-- not only do they want to block anything a Democratic President proposes, they want to block the choice of their own voters.
The time for conservative pundit pearl-clutching was back when they decided the “Southern Strategy” was a good way to win elections. From there it was downhill to making Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of congress and impeaching the President over a blowjob. At the very least the time for serious concern was when the Tea Party first reared its slimy little head – instead you guys glommed onto an actual “we hate the government” lynch mob (that you had been fertilizing for decades), and now you’re reaping the rewards.
Got folks clamoring on the DNC side that the voters should be ignored and polls should dictate who the candidate is too.
It’s much closer, though, so beware the “both sides are the same” bullshit.
Closer, but the suggested act is still disenfranchisement.
We have railed against politicians who, like President Clinton, appeared to just follow polls – but now we want them to follow polls. We then decry polls as inaccurate when we dont like them, and hold up the ones we do, regardless their methodology.
We dont trust anything that doesnt support what we want to believe.
I hope all the distrust and anger can be funneled into a new, more progressive party to offset the “balance” lost by the GOP disintegrating. Democrats look like the new center right if this can happen and the Teapublican Party will disappear in 8-12 years.
You mean the people who have had their trust funds spent to ensure that when it came to pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate, they could offer the finest bullshit that Ivy League instructors could instil?
Huh? I thought academia was a hotbed of liberalism.
You live in an era when war criminal John Yoo - who authored the Torture Memos telling the US military and CIA that torture was legally peachy-keen - is living happily ever after teaching law at University of California, effing Berkeley.
I know, right?!
(sorry, i should’ve put an /s after that previous comment, or maybe quotation marks around hotbed of liberalism)
Funny, that. Could it be that’s because most conservatives have a hard time generating polysyllabic output?
Closer, but the suggested act is still disenfranchisement.
We have railed against politicians who, like President Clinton, appeared to just follow polls – but now we want them to follow polls. We then decry polls as inaccurate when we dont like them, and hold up the ones we do, regardless their methodology.
It’s been more about acknowledging that independents disapprove of Clinton and prefer Sanders. Yes, I know, they aren’t Democrats. They’re too liberal or distrust parties or otherwise don’t matter. Does the DNC want to win the election or not?
So no, disenfranchisement is not an issue.
Ignoring the people who legitimately voted is kind of a big issue. You are making a case that people who intentionally opted out, and didn’t bother to figure out how to opt-in, can’t vote – but the people who did register with the intent of voting as a democrat should be ignored. I fail to understand it.
He’s decided he’s not coming to San Diego after all. Bummer, we were looking forward to the protest. Good to know the popo is ready for us, though.
Ignoring the people who legitimately voted
Apart from the voter suppression of closed primaries and counting pledged superdelegates so that the Clinton campaign (and the media) can ignore how close the “vote” has been for months… fine.
I get it, you’re for Clinton, but you have no high ground here. I think your derail has run its course.
You can choose to believe this, but the candidate you are supporting legitimately is losing/has lost. What it is, again, is sour grapes.
Said everyone who spoke from an association with power, ever.
I personally don’t have a problem with Clinton, if I were to ignore what I saw as a child in the 70s and 80s and since 08. But I am a long-time registered Democrat, Sanders has strong support long past the time when primaries are usually “decided”, and I do think about things more deeply than you…
…think I do.
It’s not “sour grapes”. That should be beneath you.
Hahahahahah!
Keep trying.
Well, the joke really will be on us if Sanders decides to run as an independent. He has enough support to be a significant factor in the election.
