• South Carolina Primaries: Polls close at 7PM
    244 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49828184]It's really hilarious how many of you think this defeat is gonna destroy the Sanders campaign.[/QUOTE] His campaign may be the strongest populist movement in decades, but is it "establishment" strong? We'll have to find out.
Tune in on next week's episode of DRAGON BALL Z
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49828184]It's really hilarious how many of you think this defeat is gonna destroy the Sanders campaign.[/QUOTE] This isn't going to, but Tuesday will
[QUOTE=Laferio;49828245]Tune in on next week's episode of DRAGON BALL Z[/QUOTE] Sanders-Goku 2016! "We'll give you a reason for new infrastructure!"
There's a very real possibility that Clinton is going to win every state from now on, except for Vermont on Tuesday.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49828365]There's a very real possibility that Clinton is going to win every state from now on, except for Vermont on Tuesday.[/QUOTE] You're really over dramatizing it. Sanders has excellent chances of winning Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Oklahoma on Tuesday. As well as doing well in Virginia and Texas. And you also seem to underestimate that following ST, the map gets much friendlier to Sanders, as well. It's not even the fight to carry states, its the fight to carry delegates. And right now, Clinton leads Sanders by 30 pledged delegates. Not too many.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49828214]His campaign may be the strongest populist movement in decades, but is it "establishment" strong? We'll have to find out.[/QUOTE] If it doesn't, there is going to be a lot of people who become disenchanted with the system altogether.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49828387]If it doesn't, there is going to be a lot of people who become disenchanted with the system altogether.[/QUOTE] I already am
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49828381]You're really over dramatizing it. Sanders has excellent chances of winning Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Oklahoma on Tuesday. As well as doing well in Virginia and Texas. And you also seem to underestimate that following ST, the map gets much friendlier to Sanders, as well. It's not even the fight to carry states, its the fight to carry delegates. And right now, Clinton leads Sanders by 30 pledged delegates. Not too many.[/QUOTE] Is this post ironic?
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49828462]Is this post ironic?[/QUOTE] In a way, yeah I guess it seems so. But I had to prove it in two points even if it seemed a bit contradictory.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49827711]2nd place never got a winner spot[/QUOTE] Obama was behind at this time vs clinton [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;49828365]There's a very real possibility that Clinton is going to win every state from now on, except for Vermont on Tuesday.[/QUOTE] A very real chance in what universe?
[t]https://i.imgur.com/Zfa5630.png[/t] Truly, his campaign is ruined, he has zero chance. At least wait until Super Tuesday to make that call.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49828184]It's really hilarious how many of you think this defeat is gonna destroy the Sanders campaign.[/QUOTE] It's wishful thinking on their part. They never supported him to begin with, and they want this to be the end-- even though this literally means nothing because Clinton was projected from the start to win SC and Sanders still nationally has more support than she does. He's also raised more money than she has from more donors, and he's easily the biggest populist candidate to have arisen in decades. That says volumes about how electable he is. I mean in the end, I've resigned myself to the outlook that whatever happens happens, and that's all there is to it. Either he'll win in the end, or he won't. I have no strong feelings one way or another now. Americans will nominate and elect who they deserve. If that means a rich bitch like Clinton who will continue the trend of political dynasticism and corruption (and oh God is she corrupt) in American government at our expense, so be it. If that means a xenophobic literal assclown of a human being like Trump who behaves like an angsty teenager and is just in it to enrich himself at our expense, so be it. If that means a Tea Party retard like Cruz who wants to privatize everything and thinks climate change is part of an international conspiracy by scientists and the Obama Administration, so be it. Hopefully though, we can avoid these shitty excuses for "leaders" and get Sanders into office... but if we can't, oh well. Our loss. Again, we'll get what we deserve in the end. It's the uncertainty of what that'll be/what that means exactly that's the worst part of this entire process.
I'm a Sanders supporter, and I'm getting pretty tired of these "How do you guys still think Sanders will win??"-posts. Not because I think Sanders has a great chance, but because it shows a lot of cynicism in the political process. What's wrong with showing a little hope once in a while? Denmark won the European Championship back in '92, and no one expected that at all. Sometimes a billion things just come together, and something unexpected happens. You don't have to be a mastermind to tell Sanders probably isn't going to win, but it'd nice wouldn't it? Instead of telling people to just accept that their country is fucked, let them dream for a few weeks more, it's not hurting anyone, and isn't making you look smarter, believe it or not. If you have no hope for your candidate to win, why are you even voting for him. You might as well ask Silver who's going to win and just let that be the result. It isn't even like the "he's not going to win" story is new, it's been regurgitated since he announced he was running.
What's gonna happen after Bernie loses is all the young people who many of which this is likely the first election they really care about, will say they "lose faith in the system" because their candidate didn't win and will find some reason to blame it besides him simply not having enough votes and supporters, this is already happening with all the people saying how broken the system is and how flawed the process (I won't say it's perfect though) is just because they can't handle losing. They will say how stupid Americans are and that they were the smart ones.
and they wouldn't be wrong
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49828387]If it doesn't, there is going to be a lot of people who become disenchanted with the system altogether.[/QUOTE] They already are, that's why voter turnout sucks and Bernie even got this far on his own. Him losing would just be their only hope for reform being dashed. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49829189]Denmark won the European Championship back in '92, and no one expected that at all.[/QUOTE] Germany vs Brazil, oh boy. Nobody saw that coming.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49828184]It's really hilarious how many of you think this defeat is gonna destroy the Sanders campaign.[/QUOTE] Doing worse than what was projected and getting crushed by 50 percent and failing to win over one of the core constituents of Democrats in America is a bad sign. He might have the liberal youth/white vote and some of the Hispanic vote, but what else?
[QUOTE=wystan;49829326]What's gonna happen after Bernie loses is all the young people who many of which this is likely the first election they really care about, will say they "lose faith in the system" because their candidate didn't win and will find some reason to blame it besides him simply not having enough votes and supporters, this is already happening with all the people saying how broken the system is and how flawed the process (I won't say it's perfect though) is just because they can't handle losing. They will say how stupid Americans are and that they were the smart ones.[/QUOTE] The American two-party system [I]is[/I] flawed, though, and obviously there's a huge amount of corporate influence, and I'm saying this as an outsider. Would you disagree that only having two political parties really isn't detrimental to democracy? You simply can't cover 315 million people with only two party lines. Would you disagree that it's peculiar that two families (Clinton and Bush) could potentially have had four presidents between them in the last ~25 years by January 22nd? The American political system really isn't all that democratic. Not to say we don't have problems in Denmark (that I take very seriously), but they pale in comparison the US'.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49829397]The American two-party system [I]is[/I] flawed, though, and obviously there's a huge amount of corporate influence, and I'm saying this as an outsider. Would you disagree that only having two political parties really isn't detrimental to democracy? You simply can't cover 315 million people with only two party lines. Would you disagree that it's peculiar that two families (Clinton and Bush) could potentially have had four presidents between them in the last ~25 years by January 22nd? The American political system really isn't all that democratic. Not to say we don't have problems in Denmark (that I take very seriously), but they pale in comparison the US'.[/QUOTE] It's hard to defend a two-party system, again it is far from perfect, and forcing people to pick one of two sides can be damaging to democracies, but frankly I would find that is more representative (even if loosely), than for example 10 different parties, which when ones comes into power would even more people unrepresented. Does that make sense? I can clarify if you want. Like let's say 50% are Dem. and 50% GOP, if Dems win then 50% of the population is "represented", but if you have 4 parties and one of them wins, the percentage of people you represent is even lower. I know these are extreme and simple examples but I think it illustrates the point. Again, I don't want to say a 2 party system is perfect, but I think it resulted in smaller parties with similar views being folded into one another. As for powerful political families, rich powerful people have always been a part in politics since the dawn of time, our 2nd and 6th president were father and son, so the Bush thing isn't that unusual. The Clinton situation is much more interesting since that would be a couple firsts in the history of the US.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49828381]You're really over dramatizing it. Sanders has excellent chances of winning Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Oklahoma on Tuesday. As well as doing well in Virginia and Texas. And you also seem to underestimate that following ST, the map gets much friendlier to Sanders, as well. It's not even the fight to carry states, its the fight to carry delegates. And right now, Clinton leads Sanders by 30 pledged delegates. Not too many.[/QUOTE] Of all the states that you listed, none of them really make a difference due to their low number of delegates with the exception of Texas, which Clinton has a ~30 point lead roughly over Sanders.
[QUOTE=wystan;49829411]It's hard to defend a two-party system, again it is far from perfect...[/QUOTE] Thats hardly a defense. Having at least 4 parties and proportional representation would be ideal.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49829423]Thats hardly a defense. Having at least 4 parties and proportional representation would be ideal.[/QUOTE] Did you see the rest of my post? I explain the danger with that, would you rather have a much smaller proportion of the population represented or a much larger portion of the population loosely represented? With more parties you can potentially split the voter base even more. I suppose the benefit could come from parties that have some form of overlap in their beliefs/policies, like the Green Party and the Democratic Party for example.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49829189]I'm a Sanders supporter, and I'm getting pretty tired of these "How do you guys still think Sanders will win??"-posts. Not because I think Sanders has a great chance, but because it shows a lot of cynicism in the political process.[/QUOTE] Some of it's cynicism but a lot of it is from people (JohnFisher) who stand to gain by perpetuating the idea that Sanders is an unwinnable candidate
[QUOTE=wystan;49829442]would you rather have a much smaller proportion of the population represented or a much larger portion of the population loosely represented[/QUOTE] With 2 parties you're gonna have factions within the party dominating the state of the affairs. The religious right, although a minority have traditionally had quite a bit of sway in the Republican party.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49829451]With 2 parties you're gonna have factions within the party dominating the state of the affairs. The religious right, although a minority have traditionally had quite a bit of sway in the Republican party.[/QUOTE] Quite a bit is probably an understatement. Trump recently got booed at a debate for saying that despite saying he would cut funding to Planned Parenthood regardless, they do a lot of good things for women. The name alone drives the conservative right in this country over the line. I think a Republican candidate running on a pro-choice ticket would be unthinkable.
[QUOTE=wystan;49829411]It's hard to defend a two-party system, again it is far from perfect, and forcing people to pick one of two sides can be damaging to democracies, but frankly I would find that is more representative (even if loosely), than for example 10 different parties, which when ones comes into power would even more people unrepresented. Does that make sense? I can clarify if you want. Like let's say 50% are Dem. and 50% GOP, if Dems win then 50% of the population is "represented", but if you have 4 parties and one of them wins, the percentage of people you represent is even lower[/QUOTE] that's a really big "loosely" what you're essentially describing is a captive audience
[QUOTE=wystan;49829411]It's hard to defend a two-party system, again it is far from perfect, and forcing people to pick one of two sides can be damaging to democracies, but frankly I would find that is more representative (even if loosely), than for example 10 different parties, which when ones comes into power would even more people unrepresented. Does that make sense? I can clarify if you want. Like let's say 50% are Dem. and 50% GOP, if Dems win then 50% of the population is "represented", but if you have 4 parties and one of them wins, the percentage of people you represent is even lower. I know these are extreme and simple examples but I think it illustrates the point. Again, I don't want to say a 2 party system is perfect, but I think it resulted in smaller parties with similar views being folded into one another. [/QUOTE] You realize that your example simply provides the illusion of representation, correct? Of all of the candidates running, none of them represent me and my interests/views fully, and the same is likely true for the vast majority of Americans. Just because they are effectively forced to pick from one of two party candidates instead of one of four or one of ten doesn't mean they are being better represented. You could argue that in having to appeal to a wide audience it forces candidates towards the center, but as we see the primaries do the opposite. Adding more parties though isn't the solution, replacing FPPT with a system that doesn't punish voting for "an underdog"/third party would be a much better step forward.
Can someone explain to a non-American, what exactly are those delegates are for? And what are Super Delegates?
[QUOTE=wystan;49829411]It's hard to defend a two-party system, again it is far from perfect, and forcing people to pick one of two sides can be damaging to democracies, but frankly I would find that is more representative (even if loosely), than for example 10 different parties, which when ones comes into power would even more people unrepresented. Does that make sense? I can clarify if you want. Like let's say 50% are Dem. and 50% GOP, if Dems win then 50% of the population is "represented", but if you have 4 parties and one of them wins, the percentage of people you represent is even lower. I know these are extreme and simple examples but I think it illustrates the point. Again, I don't want to say a 2 party system is perfect, but I think it resulted in smaller parties with similar views being folded into one another. As for powerful political families, rich powerful people have always been a part in politics since the dawn of time, our 2nd and 6th president were father and son, [I]so the Bush thing isn't that unusual. [/I]The Clinton situation is much more interesting since that would be a couple firsts in the history of the US.[/QUOTE] That's the problem. It's not unusual, but it [I]is[/I] very undemocratic. As for your point about more parties, it's unlikely for one party to get more than 50% of the vote, meaning that these parties would have to engage in broader political deals, therefore representing the people more fairly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.