Ah yes, the presidential debates. I don't honestly think any of the choices are that awesome. Its looking like its gonna boil down to the lesser of two evils...yet again.
I think, as a Canadian, that it would be wonderful if Trump were elected president. Only because the whole political system would blow up. And that whole system needs to be destroyed.
And maybe rebuilt. Maybe.
Ah yes, the presidential debates. I don't honestly think any of the choices are that awesome. Its looking like its gonna boil down to the lesser of two evils...yet again.
on the original topic: the idea of Trump winning isn't particularly frightening because he's done such a phenomenal job of alienating the big Republican players in Congress. Paul Ryan might have come out and said he's fully committed to working with Trump, but he'll never push Trump's populist/nationalist agenda because Ryan wants the presidency for himself someday. Lindsey Graham's another big name that might come out and begrudgingly support Trump, but clearly finds him incredibly distasteful. it does seem like the #NeverTrump movement has imploded over the past few days, but it seems obvious that it's in the name of party unity to get the vote out for down-ballot races.
more recent polls (Q-pac in particular) show that it might not be the electoral landslide for Hillary that a lot of pundits were expecting it to be when Cruz announced he was dropping out, which means there's a not-insignificant chance Trump actually is the next prez -- in which case, (1) his protectionist agenda and ridiculous tariffs would never make it through Congress because they're pretty antithetical to Conservatism, (2) his inflammatory & xenophobic rhetoric would never manifest itself in reality because of the limited powers of the presidency (and because he's already been walking back MANY of these statements as he's pivoted to the general election over the past few days), and (3) his SCOTUS nominations wouldn't be any different than those of the average Republican candidate.
a lot of these things still suck for liberals, but only as much as it would for liberalism during the tenure of any GOP candidate.
Last edited by gooddoggo; 05-14-2016 at 06:36 PM.
You could always vote for a third party candidate, like Jill Stein. That's what I'm going to do if Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination. The super-delegates really should take his side since he does better than Trump according to several polls, but the chances of that happening are pretty slim IMO.
I don't want Trump to win... easily one of the most obnoxious and annoying people in the world...
Hilary ftw!
our of curiosity: why should the superdelegates subvert the will of the people? hillary has a lead of 3 million voted on bernie. wouldn't it be wildly undemocratic to disregard those votes and hand the nomination to bernie? and it's worth noting that hillary wins poorer demographics (people with incomes under $50k), as well as minority groups. so the group you'd be disenfranchising would disproportionately be one of the most underrepresented and often silenced in this country's history. that seems messed up.Originally Posted by wafflez
add that to the fact that hillary also polls very well against trump on a national scale, and will likely do even better once the nomination is wrapped up... bernie's argument that supers should vote for him makes little to no sense to me.
Smdh! If Hillary gets it I will lose all faith in the USA.
It's important to keep in mind that with primaries, there are open and closed types (in closed ones, independents can't vote) and that contributes to Hillary's lead, along with voter suppression in areas like New York that have prevent many independents from voting for Bernie Sanders and Hillary has not tried to argue against these problems which have caused several votes to be disregarded. Furthermore, super-delegates are unpledged, meaning that they do not have to vote for the candidate with the most votes. They can choose any primary candidate for any reason they choose. Two wrongs don't make a right, but we should not ignore Hillary's actions or lack-thereof that have suppressed the votes of many independent voters. Furthermore, just because Hillary receives the most support from minorities does not mean that her actions as president will be more helpful to minorities than Bernie Sanders' actions (especially when Hillary referred to African-Americans as "super predators)."
Bernie Sanders fairs better against Trump than Hillary, and there is also the possibility of Hillary being indited in the next few months. Add to this other scandals about Hillary that are coming to light and you have several factors that can give Trump enough of an advantage to beat Hillary. A Trump victory would probably be far worse for minorities than a Sanders victory due to super-delegates choosing him over Hillary.
Last edited by wafflez; 05-17-2016 at 01:09 AM.
caucuses are wildly undemocratic, but you don't see Bernie Sanders railing against that, because he tends to win them in northern states. he's not concerned about democracy or the will of the people, he's a politician just like any other, and he's concerned with winning.
why should primaries be open? doesn't it make significantly more sense for members of a party to choose their candidate? if independents wanted to help choose the candidate a party was running, they should have registered for that party. furthermore -- voter suppression is absolutely a real thing -- but forgetting to register to vote, or to register for a party is not voter suppression. voter suppression is real in southern states where stringent voter ID laws are passed to ensure that poorer and minority populations have a more difficult time voting (supposedly this is meant to combat voter fraud, which is all but non-existent).
Sanders fares better against Hillary for the same reasons that a week ago, Gary Johnson was polling at 11% nationally. it's because no one has attacked him yet. both Hillary and Trump have withstood decades of media scrutiny. Sanders has never been called out on the myriad things that could cripple his campaign. (Hillary's never attacked him -- not in a meaningful way like she's been attacked by the right).
Caucus states don’t have a popular vote, but doesn’t make their vote less important. It just changes how the people of that state choose to make the decision on who to select in the primary.
If being concerned with winning is a problem, shouldn't Hillary Clinton be called out on that as well?
As for why primaries should be open, it's because open primaries increase voter engagement and engagement with political minorities, prevent the centralization of party power, and promote more moderate, non-partisan politics. Primaries give a lot of time for us to know about republican and democrat nominees, but little about third party candidates, giving the main parties an unfair advantage. Since a democrat or republican is more likely to win because they receive far more money and media coverage, independents should have a say in who reflects their interests the best.
All candidates have been attacked by each other, not just one, and has been called out on several things, such as his plans for universal healthcare, etc. Hillary has attacked Sanders multiple times, making claims that he is not really a democrat despite being registered with the party only recently, and implying that he does not care about families of victims of gun violence.
Last edited by wafflez; 05-17-2016 at 02:20 PM.
Posting Permissions