US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6185

Bernie Sanders is leaving open the possibility of another presidential bid, saying in a Thursday interview that he wants to focus on helping the party rebuild its base after Donald Trump's victory.

"Four years is a long time from now," said the 75-year-old Vermont senator, noting that he faces re-election to the Senate in 2018. But he added: "We'll take one thing at a time, but I'm not ruling out anything."

Sanders gave voice to the frustration among many liberals in the aftermath of Trump's stunning triumph over Hillary Clinton. He told The Associated Press in a phone interview that millions of working-class voters' decision to back Trump was "an embarrassment" to the party and that Democrats must take a strong stand against the role of corporate interests in politics.

"It is an embarrassment, I think, to the entire of Democratic Party that millions of white working-class people decided to vote for Mr. Trump, which suggests that the Democratic message of standing up for working people no longer holds much sway among workers in this country," Sanders said.

The Vermont senator declined to criticize his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, attributing Tuesday's election loss to a "lack of enthusiasm" among Democrats. "People just did not come out to vote," he said.

He said he would support Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Sanders endorsed Clinton after their lengthy primary and campaigned extensively for her. He said she's had "an exemplary political career. She has served the public for many, many decades and has broken many barriers," adding that "she deserves an enormous amount of credit. She worked extraordinarily hard in this campaign."

But he said the party as a whole was unable to make a strong enough case to struggling workers, particularly in the industrial Midwest, who sided with Trump.

"You cannot be a party which on one hand says we're in favor of working people, we're in favor of the needs of young people but we don't quite have the courage to take on Wall Street and the billionaire class. People do not believe that. You've got to decide which side you're on."

While he said he was hopeful he would be able to work with the incoming Trump administration, he made clear that would not be likely.


"I hope I'm wrong, but I believe that he is a fraud, and I think despite all of his rhetoric about being a champion of the working class, it will turn out to be hollow," Sanders said of the president-elect.

Sanders said he had not yet considered whether to seek a leadership position within the Senate Democratic caucus and was expected to become the top Democrat on either the Budget Committee or another post. But he said he would seek to mobilize Democrats to help the party rebuild.

On November 11 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote:

The way I'm reading it Clinton is ahead right now but they're projecting Trump to win the popular vote after the last 7% of the votes are counted.

On November 11 2016 06:09 Dan HH wrote:

The way I'm reading it Clinton is ahead right now but they're projecting Trump to win the popular vote after the last 7% of the votes are counted.

On November 11 2016 06:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I hate the outcome of this election but I honestly like the EC system, it puts a clamp on a majority/minority divide. The latter has to have a voice in democracies, which is ironically a point routinely pushed home by the same people who are now complaining about the EC. It can't be that 52% absolutely govern about 48%. I also don't think the technical look is very interesting in this case. The permanent divide is very real and deep, it doesn't even matter who has won.

On November 11 2016 06:12 Logo wrote:


The way I was reading it is Trump is marked as the winner and it just happens to also apply the same winning marker to the popular vote section. It also looks like they just disabled the tracking or something as other sources report 99% reporting.

NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president
TheGuardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidential

Neither mention any possibility of the vote tallies changing from here on out.

If so, just another reminder that CNN is trash and in retrospect I'm now angry about giving them a hit to verify what you said .

On November 11 2016 06:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I hate the outcome of this election but I honestly like the EC system, it puts a clamp on a majority/minority divide. The latter has to have a voice in democracies, which is ironically a point routinely pushed home by the same people who are now complaining about the EC. It can't be that 52% absolutely govern about 48%. I also don't think the technical look is very interesting in this case. The permanent divide is very real and deep, it doesn't even matter who has won.

On November 11 2016 06:19 Introvert wrote:


I still think he'll lose it, but if he won the popular vote, it would have the side effect of stopping this discussion. Maybe.

It doesn't matter in the end, though. This loss for the Democrats should not be as biting as 2000. Think of the states Hillary lost: MI(?), WI, PA. Even states like Florida and Ohio. This wasn't really a nail-biter. She failed miserably in states that were supposed to be hers, and it's entirely her fault. The only "swing states" she won were CO and NV. (And VA, but I personally am moving that into the "blue" or "heavy lean blue" category myself.)

On November 11 2016 06:12 Logo wrote:


The way I was reading it is Trump is marked as the winner and it just happens to also apply the same winning marker to the popular vote section. It also looks like they just disabled the tracking or something as other sources report 99% reporting.

NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president
TheGuardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidential

Neither mention any possibility of the vote tallies changing from here on out.

If so, just another reminder that CNN is trash and in retrospect I'm now angry about giving them a hit to verify what you said .

On November 11 2016 06:24 Dan HH wrote:

You're most likely right. I also thought that initially but then I deferred to Introvert thinking that to post this he probably had seen a change there from Hillary to Trump as the projected winner of the popular vote instead of it being the same graphic for both sections. And I was too uninterested to check elsewhere, sorry for making you click a CNN link.

On November 11 2016 06:22 Excludos wrote:


You seem to think we're only attacking EC because Hillary lost to it. I, and most others, would be equally annoyed if Hillary won because of this broken system. It wont dampen the discussion because the system isn't going to suddenly be less broken if Trump gets a few more votes. Even if it happen to work as intended this time, what's stopping it from fucking you over the next time?

On November 11 2016 06:24 Introvert wrote:
The states could change how their electors are awarded, maybe people should do some campaigning on the state level for that. The problem is, no state wants to undermine its own importance. But you wouldn't technically need an amendment to change that.

On November 11 2016 06:08 Acrofales wrote:

Go ahead. At least since 2000 every election has involved a nasty smear campaign that either had no basis in truth (swiftboat and birther scandals come to mind), or blew something said horribly out of proportion (47% and "Gore created the internet"). Is that really what you want to base your elections on?

On November 11 2016 06:27 Logo wrote:


There are states that agree to start lending their delegates to the popular vote winner if 270 electoral votes sign on the process and several other states have more lenient laws. But it is a pretty problematic issue. If only some states, or only one 'color' state joins in the system then in the short term they'll make the elected offices LESS representative. So it's a bit of shooting yourself in the foot unless you can get multiple states across the political spectrum to agree to something.

Also Maine just got ranked ballot choices, but not for president. Still a big step. Ranked ballot would be ideal, but won't happen for presidential elections for a long time because they'd gut any chance of a 3rd party getting federal funding unless the federal government changed the rules around that (right? someone correct me if I am wrong).

On November 11 2016 06:26 Introvert wrote:


I assumed whoever was working this desk at CNN was operating with the required competency.They aren't the only ones to point out he still has a shot. Don't remember where I saw the other one though.




People always complain, but there is no doubt it's amplified after elections. I wouldn't mind some reforms to it, but we aren't anywhere near that being a possibility, so I don't know how much effort should be expended talking about it here.

I still oppose a purely popular vote though, so if you are arguing in favor of that...

On November 11 2016 06:33 Introvert wrote:


I've seen that. I oppose a popular vote election anyway, so it doesn't make me feel any better. Nevermind the shadiness of it.

On November 11 2016 06:34 Excludos wrote:


Popular vote with ranking is what I would be in favor of. You don't need any kind of system to protect the smaller states in the presidential election, that's what the house of representatives is for. If you have another system in mind I'm all ears.

On November 11 2016 06:38 Logo wrote:


Shadiness how?

On November 11 2016 06:20 Excludos wrote:


If we look away from the fact that EC doesn't actually do that because it isn't working: It's only one specific kind of minority though. Why is the line drawn there? What about the other minorities, shouldn't they get their votes to count for more as well? It's an artificial line drawn by tradition and history and not for any sensible reason. Presidental candidates can't ignore small states just because the bigger states happen to have a larger population. But as the system stands, they can, because the smallest states are nearly always safe states that doesn't matter. They're also ignoring the biggest states. Their only focus is on the few uncertain swing states that actually matter in the election race. That's not a good system at all.

Not to mention that because the EC is also running a first past the post system, you can only ever have two nominees, who right now are controlled by big corporations through sponsorship. That's how you end up with two president candidates that no one wants.