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.That sounds like a problem unique to democrats, regardless of who wins.
GOP has set aside all their differences and fallen in line.
Hey yeah while we're on the subject of Real Progressivism, what's up with Bernie not being at that Selma event today unlike literally everyone else with delegates in the field?
Not when you're willingly not seeing the dots connect and low key hoping for it to happenI don't know how many dots are necessary for most folks to start connecting them but it's pretty clear what's going on.
Calling this "collusion" is like accusing people playing Risk of cheating because they made alliances. That's a legitimate and core element of the game.
Every candidate running would welcome the support of any candidate who dropped out.
Thank you. Going by the logic of some people here, LePen should've been President instead of Macron.Candidates dropping out to help out other candidates is... not collusion. Thats like exactly how politics works. Otherwise you wouldn't even be allowed to endorse someone after you drop out.
In a pleasant display that there's still progressivism outside of the election, AOC (a Bernie surrogate) just retweeted this news about Castro (a Warren surrogate) hosting a canvass for another candidate's election.
Same tbh. Just makes me more apprehensive of Sanders' chances against Trump.Bernie's answer of what is he going to do when he can't pass the legislation he has promised always rubbed me the wrong way. Traveling to states and holding rallies is going to do fuck all. Trump has been doing rallies every month or so since his election and I can't think of one issue that has moved the needle on. Obama had probably the most legendary campaign I'll ever witness in 08 (he won fucking Indiana) and yet Scott Brown won the senate seat in Massachussets in 2010. So yeah I'm not buying that tactic at all.
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.No system is perfect, but if you want to make the argument that 1.) swing voters in Connecticut are a better determinant of general election success in Ohio than Ohio, make the case.
2.) Dems are not winning by strategizing around flipping Republicans, so if your concern is independents than allow them into the process based on some criteria to avoid Republican sabotage. But knowing who is most enthusiastic about who in key states is a far more important data point than anything.
Either way, what I am not hearing is why the current situation is somehow optimal, or better than focusing on swing states first?
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 BidenNot when you're willingly not seeing them and low key hoping for it to happen
In what way is it dishonest?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!
Doesn't surprise me one bit no one really support Sanders but the people themselves.
I'm talking about the candidates themselves.If the people support him, then he should get the votes.
Why does what Pete do matter that much in that regard?
oh sorry yeah i misread your post. it is goodWhat? Why wouldn't it be? You want people to be at each other's throats even downticket?
The "brazen collusion" they're literally demanding from Warren as they decry it from ~*tHe MoDeRaTeS*~?
I see we're in the "South Carolina voters aren't real progressives" state of erasure.
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.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.
Uh-huh.I dunno about Sanders
[...]
She's being a petulant child
[...]
goodwill she had with me
In what way is it dishonest?
And i'm voting for Sanders on Tuesday.
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.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.
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!
I think if the problem was with Sanders he wouldn't be getting any support at all.Then conversely, if all candidates dislike Sanders, perhaps the problem is Sanders?
Even among this field it's a pretty diverse set of backgrounds.
It seems obvious becaue it's an easy answer, not because it's the right one.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 ensuring a stronger candidate for the general.
Bernie's answer of what is he going to do when he can't pass the legislation he has promised always rubbed me the wrong way. Traveling to states and holding rallies is going to do fuck all. Trump has been doing rallies every month or so since his election and I can't think of one issue that has moved the needle on. Obama had probably the most legendary campaign I'll ever witness in 08 (he won fucking Indiana) and yet Scott Brown won the senate seat in Massachussets in 2010. So yeah I'm not buying that tactic at all.
i personally erased south carolina with just one comment on resetera dot com. damn i'm good 😎I see we're in the "South Carolina voters aren't real progressives" state of erasure.
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.The "hey this is just how the game works" take on this brazen collusion among non-Sanders candidates is especially funny since it doesn't change the fact that he's going to get the most votes and have the most delegates. What the party chooses to do with that will determine whether they self-destruct or not.
There is nothing in the situation at all to support your point. Who are these "party officials", and what have they done here?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.
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
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.
Not really the point of those quotes, but I'll bow out anyway!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
She... kinda has a day job, ya know?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
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
Siphon, unless you wanted the votes encrypted 😏
it's not the place of elected officials to talk about public health crises.
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.
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.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.