-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
As the saying goes, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." And it's not unique to the Dems - leftist parties and coalitions the world over are far more factional and less willing to work with one another than their right-wing counterparts are with each other.
Not when you're willingly not seeing the dots connect and low key hoping for it to happen
This is a take I expect to continue to see right up to the convention, where Sanders will have the most votes and pledged delegates. And it's astonishingly dishonest.
But go ahead and "make your alliances" and see what happens!
Thank you. Going by the logic of some people here, LePen should've been President instead of Macron.
Same tbh. Just makes me more apprehensive of Sanders' chances against Trump.
I never said the current system is great, but if we're replacing it we might as well replace it with a system that treats every voter the same, at least as much as possible. Your proposal does not.
What? Why wouldn't it be? You want people to be at each other's throats even downticket?
aside from camaraderie that doesn't seem to exist in Very Online spaces: because she's primarying Cuellar
Basically. It makes plenty of sense that Pete is dropping out to bolster Biden
It makes sense Amy is staying in to deny Sanders a big win in MN, it's not like she thinks she's gonna be the nominee
Based on the responses in here it sounds like people are mad that Pete is actually validating the idea of dropping out in support of one of the frontrunners
In what way is it dishonest?
And i'm voting for Sanders on Tuesday.
If the people support him, then he should get the votes.
Why does what Pete do matter that much in that regard?
on one hand it's annoying when candidates for president stop by 2.5 black churches in mississippi and alabama and then move on, but on the other hand i still maintain that it would be good, actually, for leftist candidates to work to build leftist movements in the rural south
I dunno about Sanders but I personally couldn't give less of a shit what Warren does. She's being a petulant child and trying to get some scraps at a contested convention, and she has officially kicked the last of the goodwill she had with me off a cliff in that SC speech. Not that it matters since her remaining support is laughable.
It shouldn't be controversial to point out that SC isn't nearly as representative as some people would have it be. When 74% of your vote is from people 45 and older, that is not indicative of how much of the rest of the country is going to vote. Nor were Iowa and New Hampshire good shows of the electorate because they skewed towards White voters. Even Nevada isn't a particularly representative state, though I would argue it has been the most diverse so far across multiple categories since it was the first one to really have a represent of Latino, African American, and White voters alongside considerably better age margins that South Carolina.
It's also totally fair to point out that because the SC electorate is so old, that yes, it skews considerably more conservative than much of the country.
Those are both fair assessments of SC as a state and maybe why it should have less weight attributed to it than other states. I argue very much the same of New Hampshire and Iowa. The early voting states are a mess TBH.
It's a system where every vote isn't treated the same so if your parameters are picking someone the party supports that you think can best win to pass your agenda, the process is going to need to best reflect a path to achieving that.
If we had a national popular vote determine our president I'd be all for it, but this shit is too serious to be waxing poetical about ideals in an unfair world IMO.
Not saying my back of the napkin idea is the best, but it seems pretty obvious that giving crucial states a stronger voice earlier in the process would go a long way to raise confidence that you have picked a sufficiently strong candidate for the general.
You need to win a majority of delegates to get the nomination. This will generally track with winning a majority of votes.
If your favorite candidate can't do that with their coalition, it's not the fault of everyone else that your favored candidate didn't win. That's on your candidate.
If your favorite candidate can't do that with their coalition, it's not the fault of everyone else that your favored candidate didn't win. That's on your candidate.
The party officials have a clear-cut agenda in terms of stopping a particular candidate, and the other candidates are explicitly saying out loud that they're operating in accordance with that agenda. The "alliance" that's being built is with the party elites, and voters are nothing more than chips in this scenario.
And that's great to hear.
Then conversely, if all candidates dislike Sanders, perhaps the problem is Sanders?
Even among this field it's a pretty diverse set of backgrounds.
This is why I still have hope that Nevada is where the rest of the states really look like. CA and TX are gonna be blowouts.
Because that's how it works, why are you so shocked that a candidate who has openly attacked Sanders is suddenly not supporting Sanders when dropping out?
There isn't anything dishonest about what is being said, Sanders benefited from a splintered field which is rapidly consolidating.
Sanders needs to get fresh blood to start voting for him in primaries, the people he keeps saying are out there but aren't really showing up,
Or he needs to find ways to siphon votes from the people dropping out and become a good amount of peoples second choice, which from the state of things is not looking like a likely outcome.
Sanders isn't a unity candidate, he has a strong base but when challenged by a condensed field that base gets outnumbered.
I think if the problem was with Sanders he wouldn't be getting any support at all.
Gonna be honest, I kinda wish AOC were pounding the Sanders drum harder lately. Watched the IG live stream she did last night which was just talking about, like...coronavirus. Which, eh
It seems obvious becaue it's an easy answer, not because it's the right one.
And again, the primary should not on an institutional level be geared around deciding who has the best chance of winning the general. It's to make sure the candidate with the most support within the Party becomes that parties' leader.
FYI, Pete essentially said the same strategy when asked in an interview late January/ Early February.
If officials don't do what their constituents truly want, and if Bernie is able to get unions members to do a coordinated strike. I believe it would be possible to pass legislation.
It's up to her supporters to determine how to cope with how hard she's cratered her career and it's not my place to tell them how to grieve
i personally erased south carolina with just one comment on resetera dot com. damn i'm good 😎
This is such a silly take -- you're just jamming together a couple of pro-Sanders trains of thought without bothering to make sure they're consistent. I can kind of understand thinking that the politicking is icky. I can pretty well understand thinking that the nomination should just go to whoever has a plurality even if no one has a majority. It's ridiculous to think both. If all that matters is who gets the most delegates, regardless of whether there's a lot more vote-splitting going on among some factions of the party than others, then of course people are going to want to engage with each other outside of the actual elections in order to ensure that their faction isn't disadvantaged by vote-splitting.
"This is how the game works" because everyone knows that you're going to pitch a fit if Sanders has a plurality but doesn't get the nomination. It's your game.
There is nothing in the situation at all to support your point. Who are these "party officials", and what have they done here?
You, uh, got some receipts on that clear cut agenda for stopping a particular candidate?
Not really the point of those quotes, but I'll bow out anyway!
Did you know the proper way to wash your hands? You do now!
it's not the place of elected officials to talk about public health crises.
Because there are more races than president?
Also, being a president does not give you dictator powers.
Nevada is by far the most representative state so far, and it's not even close.
It's a strategy we've never seen work, not in the modern era anyways, I can't speak to what happened in the past.
There's a chance that it will allow Biden viability in states that he was at risk of not reaching viability which isn't so good for Bernie.
Going to be fun to see the results once the dust clears.
- Status