It’s a side effect of the two party system. If there were more viable parties, I’d be 100% okay with nobody but actual politicians that are members of the party selecting their candidate behind closed doors with no public input.
But as is, when forced to choose between two candidates the primary process is the only point where many people really get to make a choice on policy. Quite a lot of voters already pretty much know whether in the current political climate whether they’ll generally support the Republican or Democratic platform, barring any crazy wildcards like Trump racism, but the details and specific policy issues they care about come down to which candidate they select.
If we had a mixed or proportional system for Congress, and some other multi-party-friendly method for president, it would be much less of a problem because there’d be more granularity of choice in the general election.
It should be clear why people get hung up on democracy in the primaries, surely. While they are nominally private entities choosing a rep, in reality they are half the election process. In a region where one party dominates, they are basically the whole election (at the Senate, Congressman and lower levels)
This is pretty much the exact system we have now except superdelegates are at 15% instead of your limit of 10%. Is that 5% difference between the actual system and your proposed system really enough to make you think the current system is totally undemocratic?
Except, it’s not what people usually think of as “democracy” when every state sets its own rules on who can vote and who can’t. In CA, Independents can vote in the Democratic primary, but not the Republican one. Which is the correct way for democracy to work? There is nothing magical about the current system, and we could imagine other systems that could very well produce different results.
Or Caucuses. So, since caucuses benefited Bernie more than Superdelegates benefited Hillary, the system worked for sanders. Without Caucuses, the nominations would have been over months ago.
And you don’t think the people “hung up” on how democratic the primaries are would prefer open primaries nationwide? I was just pointing out that their position is easily understood even if you disagree and put more weight on the fact that the parties are private organizations.
I don’t want, nor do I expect, for you to grovel to me. I expect you to [del]die[/del] wither into permanent minority status, as the actual money people behind the Democratic Party desire for themselves. Politicians as a class are going to vote for a conservative fat cat party; Democratic politicians’ self-interest is in conflict with their populist/progressive messaging.
Really? Because I haven’t heard other Bernie supporters talk about the fact that a majority of Americans will lash back at the gays and the blacks for somehow “costing them their jobs.” Wow. I thought I was being clever; and you say that’s a *talking point? *News to me. I don’t know which one of us is confused.
So you’re *not *going to tell us what it would take for you to stop sulking enough not to help Trump? You’re just going to continue the indignant Hillary-bashing?
I’m done, son. I’m probably voting Green. If you wanted me to campaign for a Democrat, it had to be someone who was more credible than her.
I can’t help you. Even if I campaigned for her, she would lose. Do you really not understand that a majority of Americans think she’s a criminal who’s somehow skated all this time? She’s not going to win.
Ironically, the best way I could help Clinton is by talking about this year being a good year to vote for neither major party; because what you would need in order to win would be a bunch of Republican/conservative voters voting for neither Clinton nor Trump. Does that mean that this is me trying to help? Wow, I hope not.
If it were a run-off between these two, I don’t know for which I would vote. Fortunately, it’s not.
With both major party nominees having terrible, unelectable approval ratings, this year I’d be a dope to support the two-party system, which I hate.
To the degree that I have any sympathy left for Democrats and mainstream progressives, I’d rather lose the White House this year and get Congress back over the next six years–than win the White House this year without Congress, and then see the Freedom Caucus grow over the next three elections until it’s an unstoppable governing majority.
And Clinton wouldn’t just lose Congress, she would* try *to lose Congress, because she is a fat cat and she wants the Democrat Party to “put up a fight” and ultimately lose Congress to Republicans who will cut her taxes. I’d be a mark to vote for her.
Since the polls (which you have used to argue that Sanders was a better candidate) show that she probably will, in fact, beat Trump, I’d like to know if you have any basis for this statement apart from personal animus.
And therefore helping Trump. You could have simply *said *that there is, in fact, no amount of groveling that would prevent that. We now have confirmation that there’s no point in doing anything more than pointing and laughing at you.
And yet one of them *will *be elected, despite being unelectable.
It would be neither. You do know that, don’t you? Or maybe you don’t.
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Clinton. Looks like a well orchestrated plan of events to bring the Bernie plane in for a landing and bring as many of his supporters around to backing Clinton.
If foolsguinea (or any particular voter) was indeed never going to vote for Clinton, then how can it be “helping Trump” to equally not vote for him? Is adaher going to be helping Trump if he votes Libertarian?
