Do you think you are coming off as any less old, white or cranky? Lol.
I’m rather old, white and cranky, and I’m a fan of Bernie. I’m just equally happy with Hillary. It’s a little more complicated than that, of course. Sanders gets more love for more progressive positions and the appearance of being more authentic. Clinton gets a bump for breadth of experience, elect-ability, and what I perceive as an ability to get a little more accomplished.
Based on the voting demographics so far, “Bernie country” is a lot whiter than “Hillary country”. I’ll be happy to vote for either one.
To me it’s a time and place thing. I think the center is where I want any of my politicians to fall if I’m concerned about effective government. Right now, effective government is the most pressing political issue IMHO. There used to be this thing called compromise that seems to be in little supply in politics these days.
The problem as I see it is the democrats have allowed what is perceived as centrist has be planted firmly to the right of where center should be. That’s why I want a tack back to the left. I want us to start redefining the center and this isn’t going to be easy. It’s going to be even harder if we battle over every inch which is what a true centrist would inevitably do as they wouldn’t tack past their own comfort zone. We need to battle over miles because while we won’t get everything we want we will get more out of the battle.
Now, once the center is redefined I recognize that I won’t get everything I want but that’s kinda the point of compromise and I’m not so egotistical or smart enough to think that everything I believe must be the best way to solve issues.
If you think the base is white millennials, then sure. But where’s the evidence that Democrats as a whole are WELL to the left of their leadership?
I’m neither white nor old, but definitely cranky.
I chose Bernie after taking one of those online position tests and found that my views matched him 98% of the time. To me this is stunning and I doubt that I’m ever going to find someone so closely aligned with my current thinking. I don’t think I had a choice who to support.
What is funny here is that Bernie Sanders is the textbook definition of old, white and cranky. Old, white and cranky is not always too bad a thing.
I think otherwise because the media largely covered Sanders well out-of-proportion to his actual chance of winning, failed to cover most of his shortcomings, and focused on Clinton’s email scandal far out proportion to its actual meaning. Sanders got a fair shake from the Democratic party and the media. He is just too weak of a candidate and represents too sparse of an ideological population to have won.
I was HOPING to! 
Their specific multi party system seems well thought out to me as well, but again, still relatively untested comparatively.
And again, their system only works that well because it is a complete constitutional system set up that way. I see no reason to think that multi party is in and of itself any sort of greater good than two party and again see plenty of negative cautionary tales out there. And also again, I am satisfied enough with what we have as a proven stable representative democracy.
That said, sure, some specific suggestions for incremental changes come up I am open to considering each on their individual merits.
The aside in this thread was however the alleged intrinsic superiority of a multi party system. And what I see in the world are both functional and dysfunctional multi party systems with the devil in their details and specifics, in aggregate nothing clearly superior to what we have and some quite a bit not.
Because I saw it very much otherwise. The mainstream media was very much into propping Sanders up as much as possible in order to create a horse race storyline that would keep people clicking and tuning in.
If you think that the business of the media is to do anything other than sell advertising time by being able to report the largest number of eyeball and earpans as possible for as long as possible then I would submit that you may be horribly naive.
The out of date and unfair caucus system, the only thing that gave Bernie a chance? Rigging- in Sanders favor.
Rhode island? Are you fucking kidding us?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/22/3771913/rhode-island-primary-election/
“According to the Boston Globe, Rhode Island routinely closes polling locations during presidential primaries “to keep costs low during an election that usually sees few voters.” …
The precinct consolidations were announced back in January, …” Italics mine. So, it’s routine, and announced before Bernie was a serious candidate. There’s no fucking way this was done by the Dem power brokers to shush Bernie as no one had any fucking idea that Bernie would be this popular back in January. And Sanders could have won 100% of Rhode *Fucking *Islands huge 24 delegates and it would have made no difference at all. So, no, not “rigging”. Absolutely, 100% proven in the case of RI.
I don’t think that the media was against Bernie but nor do I believe that they propped him up. They had other candidates to do this with and they tried with O’Mally. They jumped to Bernie after he was drawing huge crowds and the money started pouring in. Of course, they had to cover that because it was a story rather than them creating a story to prop up a narrative when they had the very real storyline going on with the republicans. They didn’t need to manufacture headlines; they got those for free.
Yes, the net effect of the delegate assignment is in Sanders’ favor. His fraction of (non-super) delegates is greater than his fraction of the votes.
You got that in the wrong place. The state’s legal name is Rhode Island and the Fucking Providence Plantations. I know that’s kind of long to type, but still. . . [/nitpick]
Well I think it’s almost a given that a multiparty system gives a greater voice to wider range of the population than the “big tent” two party idea while the latter makes a more stable sytem. So I guess it’s a personal preference call which one is intrinsically superior.
I concede, you are correct, sir!:smack:
How macho. Please–get as many progressives nominated as you can. I’ll bet you’ll get a lot of Democrats to vote for them. Even those of us who are not young white baristas. Keep campaigning–even on off years. And in state & local elections. Keep working.
Or cast your One Symbolic Vote for an unelectable presidential candidate & then go into hibernation for the next four years.
All I can think of is Christine O’Donnell and how the Tea Party threw away a safe GOP Senate seat away to force a Centrist off the ticket. Like I said, I hope the establishment Democratic party has more of a spine than the establishment GOP… but since when has the Democratic party ever had much of a spine?
My response to the threats of Tea Party-ism is form your own fucking party and don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. If you think we can’t survive without you, put your money where your mouth is and try to prove it.
What is he spoiling? He won’t be on the November ballot, he won’t be making a third-party run, and HRC will win with or without his endorsement. The only thing he’s spoiling is the Establishment’s smug confidence in the party’s neoliberal consensus, and that needs spoiling.
Nader voters were not working within the Democratic Party.