Much the same way you've just responded to a tweet and a Facebook post with a TTH post, I'd imagine.
Much the same way you've just responded to a tweet and a Facebook post with a TTH post, I'd imagine.
My highlighting. That's rigging in my view. She's bought them.Originally Posted by mikem
I'm not sure what "parts of the country" you're suggesting that the superdelegates represent. There are primaries in each state for that.
...isn't part of the establishment. Sorry, but the fact that Hilary as been at the heart of a shit system for three decades counts against her not for her. Endorsements for her should be seen for what they really are. She would 'get things done' in the same way Obama has, by starting negotiations from the centre and ultimately allowing the Republicans to dictate terms. It would a hint towards change but nothing more, and economically it would be absolutely 100% the same shite that has failed for four decades.
Also worth noting when dismissing Bernie's ideas as impractical that he's managed to get more amendments to Republican bills than any other senator.
'Bernie' wouldn't even have to negotiate with the Republicans. Did you see how many people went to his last campaign rally?
Yeah yeah. What about the fact he HATES ISRAEL?
Hello.
Exactly. Once we the people (well, them the people) rise then whatever the Republican senators think becomes irrelevant.
Sorry, I meant that his campaign decided they were losing the South so they did not really campaign there and lost big, which is the margin now. And by your narrow definition Obama rigged the election as well because he raised money for the whole party and Bernie has too if he has ever attended a fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren.
I doubt Obama had the same decisive superdelegate support that Clinton has.
You mean like increasing the tax rate on millionaires by 3% to bring the budget into surplus, have new money for the first major infrastructure project in 40 years, reinvest in schools for the first time in a generation, and start a serious discussion and move toward resource sustainability? Jerry Brown has done all of that in California by changing the democratic establishment and even working with companies when he has to. If he were running, I would vote for him. I am not interested in Bernie because he does not understand how to play well with others and no amount of saying cool shit on tv changes that. Oh, and nice jab with the Jew - Isreal bit. Ain't it shit when us ethnics are uppity.
'Play well with others'.
I suppose this is almost a referendum on Obama's tenure: continued small-scale change within the context of corporate politics, or a real fundamental change across the board. It's depressing that some people seem to have been convinced the former is the only viable option.
There is another bloke promising big changes that you could vote for.
It's America. 'Corporate politics' is why it exists.
I don't have any problem with the parties picking their leaders non-democratically, and don't actually see why they should be obliged to do otherwise.
The general election is the only part that is obligated to be democratic, surely. The rest is internal party matters. Heck, in Australia and the UK, we don't get a say at all in who the party picks.
She hasn't bought them. Clinton has been actively involved in Democratic party politics for decades. She has put in 'hard yards' campaigning for its candidates, and has represented the party in the Senate. Compare that to Sanders, who has openly and repeatedly rejected the label of "Democrat", and openly stated that he's proud of being an independent. He only signed up last year, and that was clearly to facilitate this run under the Democratic banner. A cynic would suggest that, if the personalities were reversed, Clinton would be accused of 'piggy-backing' on the Democratic party to make a run for the White House.
So I suppose the question is: what do you expect the Democratic Party's super delegates to do, exactly? She hasn't bought them. I don't like Clinton at all, but she hasn't bought them, nor rigged anything. Sanders is merely facing the consequences for decades of asserting his independence. That's absolutely fine when you're the independent Senator for Vermont, but it's a bit off when you want to become the Democratic representative for the presidential election.
By their nature they're establishment figures whose existence is meant to act as a roadblock to a more liberal candidate like Sanders, though it's worth remembering that most of them also pledged for her in 2008 only to switch later once Obama rolled her. The media keep showing the delegate count with them included which is fucking infuriating.
She hasn't bought them in a literal sense, but the draw of the Clintons is not about rewarding their 'hard yards'. They've taken more than a billion dollars between them in their career and at this point are powerful in Washington beyond belief; they have the power to make or break people and there's been some great articles detailing how that process is working in this campaign and in general. For a lot of people it's about ending up on the right side of them going forward, be that politicians or media figures.
On the race, it's really all on New York now.
California is also a big deal isn't it?
California is a huge deal for the Republicans. If Trump loses it, then they're probably going to the convention.
The Labour Party opened its voting to all members during the previous leadership contest. Not strictly "the general public", but still somewhat democratic.
If it ends in a contested convention on the Republican side then that is going to be some primetime shit. Paul Ryan keeps denying he has any interest in being the candidate, though simultaneously released a campaign ad.
The super delegates switching to Obama demonstrates that many wouldn't be prepared to go against the voters. Obama took a majority during the campaign, and they recognised this and switched. That's how it should work where you have two sensible and electable candidates. As you say, they can be deployed to swing a nomination one way or the other. The American nomination process allows independents or non-registered citizens to vote in some states, and they therefore do need to make sure that there is a control in place to prevent some lunatic getting the nomination. Ultimately the party's goal is to nominate an electable candidate and win the White House, and if they see a clearly unelectable candidate then I don't think it's unreasonable for them to 'step in'. I would say the Republicans probably wished they had super delegates right now, whilst a British example is the Labour membership electing Corbyn (let's not get into that here) despite significant opposition from the PLP.
He'd probably be a decent compromise candidate. Trump gets hammered in November, whilst Cruz probably loses respectably. Ryan/Kasich might be competitive as a ticket, albeit it's still difficult to see past a Clinton win.
I'm a big fan of Kasich of the idea of getting Kasich on the ticket. If you assume the standard breaks in the election, it's probably going to come down to three or four swing states - Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Kasich at least wins you one off the bat.
I agree on all of that, and if Bernie topples the popular vote, then I'd imagine they'd switch. Hence why counting them when the race is still alive is bumf. Also, on the electable angle, the polling suggests he's much more electable than she is as has been for months now.
How are we diddling with this?
Are we getting closer to a Great Wall of Meccico?
No. He's lost a bit of ground and the Party is getting ready to do him over at the convention.
Scenes, Yev. Scenes.
There's going to be one hell of a seethe from him if that's the case.
If it happened and there wasn't significant violence at the convention then I'd be disappointed. If they manage to get guns in...
He'll just stand as an independent and completely fuck their chances of winning the presidency, won't he?
Aye, he's dropped his pledge to support the nominee.
That polling is a nonsense given Clinton has spent 30 years being publicly attacked, whereas the Republicans haven't even bothered lacing the gloves against Bernie. His numbers may hold up should he win and they start attacking his *very* lefty record, of course, but they may also very much not.
If Bernie takes a significant delegate lead, there's no question that the superdelegates will have to consider switching, but that scenario remains a remote possibility at present. Even if he can fight to even - unlikely, but possible - I suspect Clinton's work for the party over the last three decades will see her over the line, as well as the entirely legitimate concerns that Sanders' record won't stand up to strong attacks in the election itself.
Which is a fair way to pick a leader, but I don't see any particularly necessary reason for parties to choose their leaders in a democratic fashion. Parties aren't democracies, I figure.
Kasich is shit, only made look ok by the fact that he is surrounded by full-on nutters. Paul Ryan doesn't have much going for him either, he would get crushed.
I think Cruz would done Clinton senseless during the debates. She chimps out everyone calls her out on, well, anything.
Paul Ryan is a creepy weirdo he's the new Eric Cantor, the moment he appears on screen you can tell he's an awful bastard.
No, but given the two-party system in the US and how apologists for how third-parties are so poorly treated claim that the two main parties are "big tents" which are more diverse than European parties, the primaries are in practice a major part of national politics. So it's unfortunate.
2.25 onward. Pretty good rant.
It's just horrid screeching and shouting over each other. Also when did Fox so overtly start referring to Republicans as 'we'?
1) It's MSNBC
2) It states her job title, she was the Director of Communications for George Dubya.
3) Morning Joe sucks
Why I did I think it was Fox? Did that lady presenter used to present Fox? Either way, it's all trash.
She looks a teeny tiny bit like Megyn Kelly I guess?
Megan Kelly's grandmother, perhaps.
Bernaldo getting thwacked in New York means he's basically down to needing a miracle.
Trump's doing as well as expected, which still isn't quite good enough to get a majority, and Cruz is whipping him at delegate organisation so Trump's support will likely evaporate after the first convention vote.
Smart money would currently be for a Cruz - Clinton contest.
You are retarded.
That's the sort of insightful political analysis you just can't get anywhere else, people.
Cruz managed to get beaten by a guy who's not even running in multiple districts
I can get 14/1 on Cruz and his world-beatingly awful face stepping into Air Force One come January. Is that value?
I'd say so.
Bit of a mauling that, sadly.
What happened to Deez Nuts? There's a fallback candidate right there.
So which one of you is going to adopt me when PRESIDENT TrUMP! is running my country.
I make a mean peanut butter and jelly and am fairly neat.
It's jam you idiot.
If he makes jelly he's in, tbh.
Reply With Quote
