|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Correct Introvert, the thing is perception I think, which applies to all candidates. I think most voter's dream perception of voting means the candidate is there, by themselves. Reality is power deals and negotiations are a thing. But the perception is that Cruz and Kasich are being greedy in trying to force a contested convention, judging by the comments on several news sites. This will definitely cause a huge fracture now, if it hadn't already.
|
|
|
On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party.
How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans?
|
On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans?
Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents?
|
On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party.
Hence why the VP will be super important, you might be able to make a claim to a majority. Also, how close Trump is matters.
Also, there is a clear anti Trump feeling. His numbers across states are, for the most part, consistent. There are a record number of votes, but most of them vote against him.
The other problem is messaging. Trump's whining has the media attention, when it should be repeated again and again that Trump has way more delegates under this system than any other.
|
On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents?
They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly.
I was going off of memory. But here's an example.
http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdf
For college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdf
Though if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true.
EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo.
|
On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol.
Not voting for a candidate is NOT equivalent to voting against them in a situation with three candidates. That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. And a party should NOT feel bound to nominate a candidate purely with a plurality of support-that's absolutely stupid in so many potential scenarios it is hard to keep track of them all.
On April 26 2016 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 02:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:
They're laboring under the idea that the party shouldn't elect on the first ballot someone that may be an unacceptable candidate to >50% of the party. Crazy right?
(this is the entire point of requiring someone to have the majority of the delegates)
This is especially salient for Cruz, who would almost certainly even or ahead or at least be much closer to Trump in delegates and votes if it had been a 1v1 race from day 0. To think that Cruz would be around Trump in a 1v1 is vastly underestimating the disdain for Cruz and his actions, like shutting down the government without a plan.
Nobody in the Republican party gives a flying fuck about that-especially not anyone that voted for Rubio and lost Cruz multiple early Southern states and a huge chunk of delegates. I mean, people dropping out has helped Kasich and Cruz so much more than Trump it's kind of scary for his campaign.
|
On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo.
I just find it strange to think that a party should be beholden to interests outside of said party. Independents might "seem" left leaning now, but they could just as easily have been right leaning. If you really disagree with a party its easy enough to just vote for someone else outside of said party.
|
On April 26 2016 06:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo. I just find it strange to think that a party should be beholden to interests outside of said party. Independents might "seem" left leaning now, but they could just as easily have been right leaning. If you really disagree with a party its easy enough to just vote for someone else outside of said party.
But the reality of the US political scene is more people are not a part of either party than is in either party. So if they don't agree with the parties choices they don't have a viable choice, or at least we're assured that is always the case.
If we had a viable third party and our democracy was structured in such a way that it functioned with one I wouldn't have a problem with the concept in general (though rules like we see from Democrats in NY would still be considered too far imo) but the bottom line is that the parties don't represent a huge swath of Americans, as I've said, one larger than either of the parties do represent. That is not an acceptable situation in my opinion. Either the parties have to change their direction or we have to change the parties, there aren't really any other alternatives.
|
On April 26 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 06:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo. I just find it strange to think that a party should be beholden to interests outside of said party. Independents might "seem" left leaning now, but they could just as easily have been right leaning. If you really disagree with a party its easy enough to just vote for someone else outside of said party. But the reality of the US political scene is more people are not a part of either party than is in either party. So if they don't agree with the parties choices they don't have a viable choice, or at least we're assured that is always the case. If we had a viable third party and our democracy was structured in such a way that it functioned with one I wouldn't have a problem with the concept in general (though rules like we see from Democrats in NY would still be considered too far imo) but the bottom line is that the parties don't represent a huge swath of Americans, as I've said, one larger than either of the parties do represent. That is not an acceptable situation in my opinion. Either the parties have to change their direction or we have to change the parties, there aren't really any other alternatives.
If there is a population larger than either party then it is easy for them to run on their own ticket. The only reason to run for the primaries is get that DNC/RNC corporate money--otherwise its a waste of millions.
|
On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want.
False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else.
|
On April 26 2016 06:36 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo. I just find it strange to think that a party should be beholden to interests outside of said party. Independents might "seem" left leaning now, but they could just as easily have been right leaning. If you really disagree with a party its easy enough to just vote for someone else outside of said party. But the reality of the US political scene is more people are not a part of either party than is in either party. So if they don't agree with the parties choices they don't have a viable choice, or at least we're assured that is always the case. If we had a viable third party and our democracy was structured in such a way that it functioned with one I wouldn't have a problem with the concept in general (though rules like we see from Democrats in NY would still be considered too far imo) but the bottom line is that the parties don't represent a huge swath of Americans, as I've said, one larger than either of the parties do represent. That is not an acceptable situation in my opinion. Either the parties have to change their direction or we have to change the parties, there aren't really any other alternatives. If there is a population larger than either party then it is easy for them to run on their own ticket. The only reason to run for the primaries is get that DNC/RNC corporate money--otherwise its a waste of millions.
I (and every candidate that has tried) would disagree with the idea that "it is easy for them to run on their own ticket". There are also a lot of reasons to run on the party ticket. "Free media" as it's called is just one of several. Of all of them the corporate party money would be the last reason Bernie would be running on the ticket (remember both Obama and Sanders want to ban lobbyist donations to the party, Hillary is alone on not wanting that). His fundraising is one of the few things he's leading Hillary in the horse race aspect of the race between the campaigns.
|
On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else.
You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine.
Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party.
|
On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo.
I think this just highlights a lot of what I am saying: People with beliefs which fit decently well with democrats, are still not comfortable quite being considered democrats. None of this shows that independents can't just register as democrats. If someone supports a $15 minimum wage, they will absolutely never get that with the GOP. If their beliefs are "complicated" and have other things they disagree with democrats on, such as abortion or other social issues, they might not be democrats. It still comes down to people having unrealistically high expectations of political parties. There is no mainstream democrat issue that Bernie isn't either as far left or more left. It's not like the socially conservative but fiscally liberal people are the ones inflating Bernie's numbers.
As I have pointed out many times, I would prefer a political agenda to the left of Bernie. There are many things about the democratic party that disappoint me. But the GOP disappoints me a lot more. Some people are not comfortable with that situation. They feel like their vote is more important than to settle for the less hated. They are wrong. It's really that simple. The political process continues to operate in spite of their discomfort. If these people wanted to influence policy in 2016, their clear only option was democrat or republican. If someone is considering voting for Bernie this year, they would have easily been able to determine democrats fit "better" than republicans with their beliefs.
If they wanted to participate in a primary, and they knew they didn't support the GOP's platform, they should have registered to be a democrat.
|
On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party.
70-80%? I'm not sure Sanders is even getting 70-80% of the U30 vote (nationwide, e.g. in NY he got 65%), but more importantly, I expect that only a fairly small percentage is rabid enough to go all Bernie or Bust on the general elections. Some more might stay home out of general apathy, but I expect most who could be bothered to vote in the primary will in fact show up to vote for Hillary, if only to keep whatever candidate the GOP pushes forward out of the white house.
|
If they wanted to participate in a primary, and they knew they didn't support the GOP's platform, they should have registered to be a democrat.
How far in advance do you think they should have to decide which party to join if they have mixed positions? Should they get to see a debate from all of the candidates first?
|
On April 26 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 06:36 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Do you think any of these independents in favor of a $15 minimum wage and free university education would have supported a republican? Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo. I just find it strange to think that a party should be beholden to interests outside of said party. Independents might "seem" left leaning now, but they could just as easily have been right leaning. If you really disagree with a party its easy enough to just vote for someone else outside of said party. But the reality of the US political scene is more people are not a part of either party than is in either party. So if they don't agree with the parties choices they don't have a viable choice, or at least we're assured that is always the case. If we had a viable third party and our democracy was structured in such a way that it functioned with one I wouldn't have a problem with the concept in general (though rules like we see from Democrats in NY would still be considered too far imo) but the bottom line is that the parties don't represent a huge swath of Americans, as I've said, one larger than either of the parties do represent. That is not an acceptable situation in my opinion. Either the parties have to change their direction or we have to change the parties, there aren't really any other alternatives. If there is a population larger than either party then it is easy for them to run on their own ticket. The only reason to run for the primaries is get that DNC/RNC corporate money--otherwise its a waste of millions. I (and every candidate that has tried) would disagree with the idea that "it is easy for them to run on their own ticket". There are also a lot of reasons to run on the party ticket. "Free media" as it's called is just one of several. Of all of them the corporate party money would be the last reason Bernie would be running on the ticket (remember both Obama and Sanders want to ban lobbyist donations to the party, Hillary is alone on not wanting that). His fundraising is one of the few things he's leading Hillary in the horse race aspect of the race between the campaigns.
There is literally zero other reason to run for the primary than corporate DNC money--especially if you disagree with party status quo. If you disagree with the party message, and you don't want the party money--then you literally have ZERO reason to run in the primary. Especially if you have a "majority" as you keep claiming.
And when you say "every other party" you really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you really think that the GOP has been fractured into 4 different parties for no reason whatsoever? Do you really think the Neolibs during the 90's are the same Democrats as those during the carter administration? New parties pop in and out all the time, they all eventually get filtered into the Democratic and Republican parties--but that's primarily to focus corporate fundraising into a singular force. If you do not have enough support to change the party, then you either get enough support or you start your own party.
Heck, according to you the Bernie party has no difficulties getting funding or getting hype--so it should be easy as pie. Don't even call it an independent party--just call it FeeltheBern Party, or FaceBookMeme.gov party, or whatever you think will keep the youth actually showing up and supporting. If you can't keep yourself afloat, how do you expect to change the Democratic party?
A large part of unified parties is to filter money to the appropriate districts. Random city councilman or Legislator in bumfuck wherever has no chance to have a bernie style campaign--those people need DNC corporate wallstreet money to function. And without them, you never get a majority in either the house or the senate. Without the house and senate then you're just an old person trying to spit at the wind.
|
On April 26 2016 07:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. 70-80%? I'm not sure Sanders is even getting 70-80% of the U30 vote (nationwide, e.g. in NY he got 65%), but more importantly, I expect that only a fairly small percentage is rabid enough to go all Bernie or Bust on the general elections. Some more might stay home out of general apathy, but I expect most who could be bothered to vote in the primary will in fact show up to vote for Hillary, if only to keep whatever candidate the GOP pushes forward out of the white house.
I would love to see (sadly it is impossible) how many of those Bernie or Busts would have voted at all if Bernie did not exist. They are hardly a 'lost vote'.
And yes I completely agree with the sentiment posted earlier that anyone who considers voting for Bernie should have already registered as democrat (in closed primary states). They either want a say in the process or they do not and Bernie supporters sure don't belong with the Republicans, no reason to stay independent but to avoid the vote and shake your fist about how unfair it is instead.
|
On April 26 2016 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +If they wanted to participate in a primary, and they knew they didn't support the GOP's platform, they should have registered to be a democrat. How far in advance do you think they should have to decide which party to join if they have mixed positions? Should they get to see a debate from all of the candidates first?
If you support a $15 minimum wage and free college, you could have easily predicted which party you'd prefer for the past 10 years. Your perception would have never once changed over Obama's entire presidency. The GOP shut down the government to decrease spending.
|
On April 26 2016 07:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:36 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:02 Introvert wrote:
Trump cultists will simultaneously claim that the system is rigged while it benefits him. That Trump is a great deal maker, but no one else can make a deal. That Trump is best for the party, while he can't even secure his the nomination as the front runner. That he deserves it because he deserves it.
This "deal" is just agreeing to spend money in different places. This is more for the media coverage. They aren't doing what Rubio did, where he told people in Ohio to vote for Kasich.
This is still up to the voters. If the majority wants to stop Trump, then they will vote accordingly. This isn't even sleazy.
Kasich should be happy, he's forced his way into relevence by not leaving when he should have. Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol. On April 26 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Since those are both supported by 60%+ of Americans I would say yes. Not sure what that has to do with being able to have a voice in who is on the ballot in November without pledging to a political gang though? What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party?? My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo. I just find it strange to think that a party should be beholden to interests outside of said party. Independents might "seem" left leaning now, but they could just as easily have been right leaning. If you really disagree with a party its easy enough to just vote for someone else outside of said party. But the reality of the US political scene is more people are not a part of either party than is in either party. So if they don't agree with the parties choices they don't have a viable choice, or at least we're assured that is always the case. If we had a viable third party and our democracy was structured in such a way that it functioned with one I wouldn't have a problem with the concept in general (though rules like we see from Democrats in NY would still be considered too far imo) but the bottom line is that the parties don't represent a huge swath of Americans, as I've said, one larger than either of the parties do represent. That is not an acceptable situation in my opinion. Either the parties have to change their direction or we have to change the parties, there aren't really any other alternatives. If there is a population larger than either party then it is easy for them to run on their own ticket. The only reason to run for the primaries is get that DNC/RNC corporate money--otherwise its a waste of millions. I (and every candidate that has tried) would disagree with the idea that "it is easy for them to run on their own ticket". There are also a lot of reasons to run on the party ticket. "Free media" as it's called is just one of several. Of all of them the corporate party money would be the last reason Bernie would be running on the ticket (remember both Obama and Sanders want to ban lobbyist donations to the party, Hillary is alone on not wanting that). His fundraising is one of the few things he's leading Hillary in the horse race aspect of the race between the campaigns. There is literally zero other reason to run for the primary than corporate DNC money--especially if you disagree with party status quo. If you disagree with the party message, and you don't want the party money--then you literally have ZERO reason to run in the primary. Especially if you have a "majority" as you keep claiming. And when you say "every other party" you really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you really think that the GOP has been fractured into 4 different parties for no reason whatsoever? Do you really think the Neolibs during the 90's are the same Democrats as those during the carter administration? New parties pop in and out all the time, they all eventually get filtered into the Democratic and Republican parties--but that's primarily to focus corporate fundraising into a singular force. If you do not have enough support to change the party, then you either get enough support or you start your own party. Heck, according to you the Bernie party has no difficulties getting funding or getting hype--so it should be easy as pie. Don't even call it an independent party--just call it FeeltheBern Party, or FaceBookMeme.gov party, or whatever you think will keep the youth actually showing up and supporting. If you can't keep yourself afloat, how do you expect to change the Democratic party? A large part of unified parties is to filter money to the appropriate districts. Random city councilman or Legislator in bumfuck wherever has no chance to have a bernie style campaign--those people need DNC corporate wallstreet money to function. And without them, you never get a majority in either the house or the senate. Without the house and senate then you're just an old person trying to spit at the wind.
To be fair, GH does have a point in this case. If your not a Republican or Democrat your not going to get screen time on tv from news organisations. Outside of a debate (where you will be largely ignored) or ads you buy yourself.
With American news being so clearly aligned with either the Rep or Dem you get a lot of free face time as their candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
