Sanders campaign to lay off hundreds of staff and go all-in on California
72 replies, posted
[QUOTE=lope;50218665]Why not let purely the people decide?[/QUOTE]
Because the primaries are not actually democratic, and prior to the disastrous 1964 election were chosen entirely by party leadership. The primary is designed to make people think their votes count while superdelegates provide enough leverage to overrule the people if necessary.
In practice, however, they will not contradict the popular vote because it would be political suicide. So for all intents and purposes, they're irrelevant to the outcome. They'll side with whoever wins the popular vote.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50218681]Because the primaries are not actually democratic, and prior to the disastrous 1964 election were chosen entirely by party leadership. The primary is designed to make people think their votes count while superdelegates provide enough leverage to overrule the people if necessary.
In practice, however, they will not contradict the popular vote because it would be political suicide. So for all intents and purposes, they're irrelevant to the outcome. They'll side with whoever wins the popular vote.[/QUOTE]
And I get that, like I said I get why they exist, I just think it's incredibly corrupt. Again, I'm not one to judge since I still can't think of an alternative, but maybe just decreasing the amount of supers to a view hundred instead of 700 would be better.
[QUOTE=lope;50218674]Also, according to RCP the current numbers (RCP Average) is 49.5% Clinton, 45.8% Sanders. That's a 3.7 point gap, not a 10 point gap.
With the number so damn close, Clinton [I]still[/I] has an [I]40 to 3[/I] delegate lead over Sanders.
Shouldn't the supers at least be slightly more 50/50 to represent the general public's views of who should be nominated? or is it the second one delegate has a 1% lead over the other they all jump boat[/QUOTE]
RCP is showing Clinton at 1644 pledged and Sanders at 1316 pleged. With her still at 55.5% and him at an even lower 44%. Which page are you getting your numbers from?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50218694]RCP is showing Clinton at 1644 pledged and Sanders at 1316 pleged. With her still at 55.5% and him at an even lower 44%. Which page are you getting your numbers from?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html[/url]
General public, not elected delegates
[QUOTE=lope;50218702][url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html[/url]
General public, not elected delegates[/QUOTE]
Superdelegates don't decide based on irrelevant polling, they decide based on the official party primary.
[QUOTE=lope;50218665]I still think they're an issue. Why not let purely the people decide? Why give a candidate who's only slightly leading a massive boost in delegates? Not to mention you're operating under an assumption that these super delegates, these individual people, wouldn't accept bribery, or other forms of influence. Not saying it's happening, I'm just saying the current system makes it easy.[/QUOTE]
Super delegates were made so racists didn't hijack the democratic party
Here's another question. Many states already voted, and as we all know, for Hillary. So she got the majority of the delegates. That's fair. However, now we see that many people who have already voted are starting to favor Sanders, so should super-delegates represent the leader in past elected delegates, or the current opinions of the public?
[QUOTE=lope;50218718]Here's another question. Iowa already voted, and as we all know, for Hillary. So she got the majority of the delegates. That's fair. However, now we see that many people who have already voted are starting to favor Sanders, so should super-delegates represent the leader in past elected delegates, or the current opinions of the public?[/QUOTE]
Super delegates are the party-insider veto. They make sure some extreme populist doesn't hijack the party (like Trump is doing to the republicans)
But honestly, super delegates are the least of your worries right now. Sanders doesn't even have a majority of people voting for him in the pledged delegates so far. Without that. Super delegates are irrelevant
[QUOTE=lope;50218718]Here's another question. Iowa already voted, and as we all know, for Hillary. So she got the majority of the delegates. That's fair. However, now we see that many people who have already voted are starting to favor Sanders, so should super-delegates represent the leader in past elected delegates, or the current opinions of the public?[/QUOTE]
Clinton won Iowa by 49.9% Sanders won the next state New Hampshire by 61%. If we follow your logic there then Sanders should have taken the lead not Clinton.
Sanders also lost the five of the last six primaries, and tied on the seventh in delegates gained.
What I mean is, if all these polls are showing 50/50 support between Sanders and Hillary, despite her having such a large delegate count, then the supers should try to even out the delegates to represent what the public supports, or what the public supported 4 months ago?
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50218729]Super delegates are the party-insider veto. They make sure some extreme populist doesn't hijack the party (like Trump is doing to the republicans)
But honestly, super delegates are the least of your worries right now. Sanders doesn't even have a majority of people voting for him in the pledged delegates so far. Without that. Super delegates are irrelevant[/QUOTE]
And that's a fair and valid argument for their existence. But Sander's isn't an extremist and half the party supports him. Therefore, I think, they shouldn't all get on Clinton's boat.
[QUOTE=lope;50218738]What I mean is, if all these polls are showing 50/50 support between Sanders and Hillary, despite her having such a large delegate count, then the supers should try to even out the delegates to represent what the public supports, or what the public supported 4 months ago?[/QUOTE]
Polls don't matter, the primaries show who will actually come out and vote, and so far it's shown more people are willing to come out and vote for Clinton. Even the RCP poll shows Clinton in the lead, though not by much. Superdelegates don't try to even the field, they support whoever has the best chance currently.
[QUOTE=lope;50218738]What I mean is, if all these polls are showing 50/50 support between Sanders and Hillary, despite her having such a large delegate count, then the supers should try to even out the delegates to represent what the public supports, or what the public supported 4 months ago?[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind the super delegates are also from those states. If the people of Iowa are polled tomorrow to say that 70% of them hate Clinton, the super delegates from that state will probably go to sanders
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50218751]Keep in mind the super delegates are also from those states. If the people of Iowa are polled tomorrow to say that 70% of them hate Clinton, the super delegates from that state will probably go to sanders[/QUOTE]
This is my point. Many states already voted in favor of her, but just now we are seeing that many many more people support him. So I think those super delegates should switch over. Not every single one of them, but proportionally enough to at least somewhat even the playing field. Even if Hillary maintain the majority of the supers (which she should since she [I]is [/I]leading), Bernie should at least get almost as much. They're not trying to keep an extremest from getting the nomination, they're trying to make Hillary win despite the public showing just as much support for Bernie. If Bernie was a true communist hell bent on torturing people and creating a one party state, then you bet I'd support those supers all siding with Hillary, but that's not the case. There's no legitimate reason, in my opinion, for such an overwhelming support for her by the supers. An un-proportional overwhelming support.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50218746]Polls don't matter, the primaries show who will actually come out and vote, and so far it's shown more people are willing to come out and vote for Clinton. Even the RCP poll shows Clinton in the lead, though not by much. Superdelegates don't try to even the field, they support whoever has the best chance currently.[/QUOTE]
And doesn't Sanders lead Clinton against every Republican in every poll taken thus far, more than Hillary leads? By that logic, Bernie is more electable even if polls 4 months ago says otherwise.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
Keep in mind I just want the supers to be more fair to the people in the present. So, currently Pennsylvania supports Clinton. So I support the PA supers siding with Clinton. But in states like Utah where Sanders won unbelievable landslides, how come those supers still support Clinton?
[QUOTE=lope;50218580]I get where you're coming from with this, but we live in a country where the president can only be one of those two parties. If we want to keep saying we're a democracy, we should let the people choose their presidential candidates, not the party. The other way around just shoehorns people into the general and if the public doesn't like them, too bad; there's no way the public can get who they want because the parties choose. At least that's how I'm interpreting your argument.[/QUOTE]
But people [I]do[/I] choose presidential candidates. Each party has a group of members (as in, actual people not party leadership) that go to a primary and vote for who they want their party to nominate for the presidency.
Independents are people without a party. They have the option of making up their own party, then becoming members of that and going through the same process. But if you're not affiliated with a party, don't cry when they don't let non-members into their voting club (primary) because that's not how any organization works. It's almost akin to me, a NJ resident, going over to Maryland and voting in their governor race then heading back to NJ after - I'm not a Maryland resident, so I shouldn't get a say. (No, it's not a one to one example, so don't dissect it as not being absolutely the same. It's just that, an example, to get my point across).
[QUOTE=elowin;50218596]This would be all well and good if the system wasn't locked down to those two parties, pretty much instantly disqualifying anyone who runs as a third party.[/QUOTE]
That's more of a first-past-the-post issue than the Republicans or Democrats outright fault.
Yes, those two would naturally push out any third party contender, but they didn't become so dominate in American politics because they were good at it or offered Americans the best deals - they got there because it was the natural progression of the voting system throughout the decades.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218823]But people [I]do[/I] choose presidential candidates. Each party has a group of members (as in, actual people not party leadership) that go to a primary and vote for who they want their party to nominate for the presidency.
Independents are people without a party. They have the option of making up their own party, then becoming members of that and going through the same process. But if you're not affiliated with a party, don't cry when they don't let non-members into their voting club (primary) because that's not how any organization works. It's almost akin to me, a NJ resident, going over to Maryland and voting in their governor race then heading back to NJ after - I'm not a Maryland resident, so I shouldn't get a say. (No, it's not a one to one example, so don't dissect it as not being absolutely the same. It's just that, an example, to get my point across).
That's more of a first-past-the-post issue than the Republicans or Democrats outright fault.
Yes, those two would naturally push out any third party contender, but they didn't become so dominate in American politics because they were good at it or offered Americans the best deals - they got there because it was the natural progression of the voting system throughout the decades.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1516574&p=50218614&viewfull=1#post50218614"]
Read my follow up post. [/URL] And your analogy doesn't really work because you shouldn't be allowed to vote for the MD governor because that doesn't affect you at all. A president, regardless of the party, does affect everyone. But say you can. So now you've voted for the MD governor even though they don't represent you. Well, now you're not allowed to vote for you're own governor because you already made a bid for a different governor. The analogy kinda falls apart since there are multiple governors for multiple jurisdictions, but I think you get my point.
[QUOTE=lope;50218844][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1516574&p=50218614&viewfull=1#post50218614"]
Read my follow up post. [/URL] And your analogy doesn't really work because you shouldn't be allowed to vote for the MD governor because that doesn't affect you at all. A president, regardless of the party, does affect everyone. But say you can. So now you've voted for the MD governor even though they don't represent you. Well, now you're not allowed to vote for you're own governor because you already made a bid for a different governor. The analogy kinda falls apart since there are multiple governors, but I think you get my point.[/QUOTE]
"This isn't a great example but look at the point I'm making"
"Your example is isn't great so let's dismiss it"
Good job.
Anyway, to boil it down, my point is don't cry about not being able to vote in club elections when you're not part of the club.
The [I]general election[/I] is for everyone to vote on president. Not the primaries. The primaries are for the [I]parties[/I] to vote on who they want to run in the general and if you're not in the party, you don't get a say. Stop treating each primary day as a Tuesday in November.
[QUOTE=lope;50218781]This is my point. Many states already voted in favor of her, but just now we are seeing that many many more people support him. So I think those super delegates should switch over. Not every single one of them, but proportionally enough to at least somewhat even the playing field. Even if Hillary maintain the majority of the supers (which she should since she [I]is [/I]leading), Bernie should at least get almost as much. They're not trying to keep an extremest from getting the nomination, they're trying to make Hillary win despite the public showing just as much support for Bernie. If Bernie was a true communist hell bent on torturing people and creating a one party state, then you bet I'd support those supers all siding with Hillary, but that's not the case. There's no legitimate reason, in my opinion, for such an overwhelming support for her by the supers. An un-proportional overwhelming support.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[B]And doesn't Sanders lead Clinton against every Republican in every poll taken thus far, more than Hillary leads? By that logic, Bernie is more electable even if polls 4 months ago says otherwise.[/B]
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
Keep in mind I just want the supers to be more fair to the people in the present. So, currently Pennsylvania supports Clinton. So I support the PA supers siding with Clinton. But in states like Utah where Sanders won unbelievable landslides, how come those supers still support Clinton?[/QUOTE]
Then those people should be going out to the polls and voting. The democratic party is never going to elect someone that their own party won't vote for.
1.) It means it doesn't represent the party.
2.) It means they'll probably lose the GE since they couldn't even get enough votes internally.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218855]"This isn't a great example but look at the point I'm making"
"Your example is isn't great so let's dismiss it"
Good job.
Anyway, to boil it down, my point is don't cry about not being able to vote in club elections when you're not part of the club.
The [I]general election[/I] is for everyone to vote on president. Not the primaries. The primaries are for the parties to vote on who they want to run in the general. Stop treating each primary day as a Tuesday in November.[/QUOTE]
What? You're example couldn't be applied to the situation. You shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone who wouldn't represent you. So yes, I don't think a New Jerseyan should vote for MD governor. But I do think a republican should be able to vote for a democratic nominee because that person will represent them. Whether you're democratic or republican, the president will still have power over you. Or end all this nonesense by removing the damn registration deadlines
[QUOTE=lope;50218872]What? You're example couldn't be applied to the situation. You shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone who wouldn't represent you. So yes, I don't think a New Jerseyan should vote for MD governor. But I do think a republican should be able to vote for a democratic nominee because that person will represent them. Whether you're democratic or republican, the president will still have power over you. [B]Over end all this nonesense by removing the damn registration deadlines[/B][/QUOTE]
If there isn't a registration deadline everyone will try registering in the actual primary and congest the voting booths. It's a logistical choice.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50218869]Then those people should be going out to the polls and voting. The democratic party is never going to elect someone that their own party won't vote for.
1.) It means it doesn't represent the party.
2.) It means they'll probably lose the GE since they couldn't even get enough votes internally.[/QUOTE]
What about the fact that in Utah, where those people do go out and vote for Sanders, he still doesn't have the any of the supers.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50218879]If there isn't a registration deadline everyone will try registering in the actual primary and congest the voting booths. It's a logistical choice.[/QUOTE]
My friend isn't able to vote for Sanders here in NJ because she forgot she was a registered independent and a deadline was a month ago. Two months before the election. I understand that it was her fault and she should've been aware of the deadlines, but is it fair to say "oh well you forgot the deadline you lost your right to vote for who you want."
[QUOTE=lope;50218872]What? You're example couldn't be applied to the situation. You shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone who wouldn't represent you. So yes, I don't think a New Jerseyan should vote for MD governor. But I do think a republican should be able to vote for a democratic nominee because that person will represent them. Whether you're democratic or republican, the president will still have power over you. Or end all this nonesense by removing the damn registration deadlines[/QUOTE]
Stop analyzing my poor example and look at my damn point.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=lope;50218881]
My friend isn't able to vote for Sanders here in NJ because she forgot she was a registered independent and a deadline was a month ago. Two months before the election. I understand that it was her fault and she should've been aware of the deadlines, but is it fair to say "oh well you forgot the deadline you lost your right to vote for who you want."[/QUOTE]
Uh, yes? Because this isn't the general election. It's for the party members (people registered as this party or that) to go vote for their party's nominee, not the general presidency.
Again, if you're not part of the club, don't cry when they don't let you vote for club matters.
[QUOTE=elowin;50218609]The people running the country doesn't owe the citizens of the country shit? Really?[/QUOTE]
yes really
the party doesn't owe unregistered people a vote in THEIR primary
surprise!!
[QUOTE=lope;50218881]What about the fact that in Utah, where those people do go out and vote for Sanders, he still doesn't have the any of the supers.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[B]My friend isn't able to vote for Sanders here in NJ[/B] because [B]she forgot she was a registered independent[/B] and a deadline was a month ago. Two months before the election. I understand that it was her fault and she should've been aware of the deadlines, but is it fair to say "oh well you forgot the deadline you lost your right to vote for who you want."[/QUOTE]
Superdelegates don't represent the state, they represent the parties current best candidate, which is Clinton. I never said otherwise.
It seems like if she really wanted to vote she would have actually put a modicum of effort into it then.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218895]Stop analyzing my poor example and look at my damn point.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you're point is valid because the president affects all people. You think that since the parties are clubs, for lack of a better word, then only those members should be able to vote for a nominee. I just don't agree with that because some people may change their viewpoints and find out it's too late to switch parties. Or an independent might not agree with everything Sanders says but still wants to vote for him because they believe he's the best candidate but don't wan to register as a democrat because they don't want to be one.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50218909]Superdelegates don't represent the state, they represent the parties current best candidate, which is Clinton. I never said otherwise.
It seems like if she really wanted to vote she would have actually put a modicum of effort into it then.[/QUOTE]
Stop analyzing my poor example and look at my damn point.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50218909]Superdelegates don't represent the state, they represent the parties current best candidate, which is Clinton. I never said otherwise.
It seems like if she really wanted to vote she would have actually put a modicum of effort into it then.[/QUOTE]
And she does really want to vote. We were getting ready to spend hundreds on campaign supplies. She's donated several hundreds to his campaign. But she was unaware she was a registered independent, and by the time she discovered it, it was too late.
[QUOTE=lope;50218911]I don't think you're point is valid because the president affects all people. You think that since the parties are clubs, for lack of a better word, then only those members should be able to vote for a nominee. I just don't agree with that because some people may change their viewpoints and find out it's too late to switch parties. Or an independent might not agree with everything Sanders says but still wants to vote for him because they believe he's the best candidate but don't wan to register as a democrat because they don't want to be one.[/QUOTE]
The independents made their choice when they registered as such. I registered as independent back in 2008 fully aware I would not be participating in primaries for years to come, even before the candidates in those primaries ever announced a campaign.
Deadlines are a fact of life, better get use to it. If you can't make a decision beforehand, don't cry foul and disenfranchisement when you do afterward.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=lope;50218911]
And she does really want to vote. We were getting ready to spend hundreds on campaign supplies. She's donated several hundreds to his campaign. But she was unaware she was a registered independent, and by the time she discovered it, it was too late.[/QUOTE]
How the ever loving fuck do you forget what you're registered as? For someone supposedly so concerned about politics, that's a pretty fucking big thing to remember.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218927]The independents made their choice when they registered as such. I registered as independent back in 2008 fully aware I would not be participating in primaries for years to come, even before the candidates in those primaries ever announced a campaign.
Deadlines are a fact of life, better get use to it. If you can't make a decision beforehand, don't cry foul and disenfranchisement when you do afterward.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they have a place in voting, where people can change and have the right to change their opinions whenever they choose.
[QUOTE=lope;50218935]I don't think they have a place in voting, where people can change and have the right to change their opinions whenever they choose.[/QUOTE]
I suppose we ought to let people change their votes in December after the general, too?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218927]The independents made their choice when they registered as such. I registered as independent back in 2008 fully aware I would not be participating in primaries for years to come, even before the candidates in those primaries ever announced a campaign.
Deadlines are a fact of life, better get use to it. If you can't make a decision beforehand, don't cry foul and disenfranchisement when you do afterward.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
How the ever loving fuck do you forget what you're registered as? For someone supposedly so concerned about politics, that's a pretty fucking big thing to remember.[/QUOTE]
You'd have ask her that.
Why are you so opposed to opening the primaries to all people? What do you think will happen? What reason do you think it could be harmful other than "its their club only they can vote!!"
[QUOTE=lope;50218911]I don't think you're point is valid because the president affects all people. You think that since the parties are clubs, for lack of a better word, then only those members should be able to vote for a nominee. I just don't agree with that because some people may change their viewpoints and find out it's too late to switch parties. Or an independent might not agree with everything Sanders says but still wants to vote for him because they believe he's the best candidate but don't wan to register as a democrat because they don't want to be one.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
Stop analyzing my poor example and look at my damn point.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[B]And she does really want to vote. We were getting ready to spend hundreds on campaign supplies. She's donated several hundreds to his campaign. But she was unaware she was a registered independent, and by the time she discovered it, it was too late.[/B][/QUOTE]
Why are you pasting Emperor Scorpuous's reply at me, your example was an example of voter apathy. Not to mention you continued the same example immediately after that, do you expect me not to reply now?
People who can't be bothered to put effort into voting. Finding out when they vote, finding out when they register, researching the candidates shouldn't be voting. If she was in a closed primary state maybe she shouldn't have registered independent.
No one else registered her independent, she did that herself, if she couldn't be bothered to look at her voter ID or look up which party she was affiliated with it seems like maybe she didn't care too much about the voting process.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218943]I suppose we ought to let people change their votes in December after the general, too?[/QUOTE]
Don't pull a strawman. Votes are different from deadlines to be able to vote. It's a human right to be able to vote. You should be able to vote for whoever you want when the time comes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.