Monday Open Thread [4.18.16]
NEW YORK—Emerson–Trump 55, Kasich 21, Cruz 18
NEW YORK—Emerson–Clinton 55, Sanders 40
NEW YORK—NBC 4 NY/WSJ/Marist–Trump 54, Kasich 25, Cruz 16
NEW YORK—CBS News/YouGov–Trump 54, Kasich 19, Cruz 21
NEW YORK—CBS News/YouGov–Clinton 53, Sanders 43
PENNSYLVANIA—CBS News/YouGov–Trump 46, Cruz 26, Kasich 23
CALIFORNIA—CBS News/YouGov–Trump 49, Cruz 31, Kasich 16
CALIFORNIA—CBS News/YouGov— Clinton 52, Sanders 40
PENNSYLVANIA—Morning Call–Trump 41, Kasich 26, Cruz 23
NEW YORK—Emerson–Clinton 55, Trump 36 | Sanders 51, Trump 37 | Clinton 59, Cruz 28 | Sanders 58, Cruz 27
“In his ever-escalating fight with the Republican National Committee, Donald Trump warned Saturday that party leaders should reform its system for selecting a nominee or face a ‘rough July’ when it holds its convention in Cleveland,” the Washington Post reports.
Said Trump: “The Republican National Committee, they’d better get going, because I’ll tell you what: You’re going to have a rough July at that convention. You’d better get going, and you’d better straighten out the system because the people want their vote. The people want their vote, and they want to be represented properly.”
In the alternative universe where Democrats award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, Clinton would clinch the nomination with a win in NY
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) April 18, 2016
The nomination will also be essentially, if not mathematically, clinched if Clinton wins in New York tomorrow in our proportional system. With Bernie behind by well over 200 delegates, in every contest going forward, Sanders will need to have gained net delegates on Clinton. Indeed, according to Nate Silver and Chris Bowers, as of right now (before New York), he needs to win 59% of all the remaining pledged delegates to get to a majority of 2026. If he loses New York by the expected margin currently reflected in the polls, that percentage jumps up to 64%. So, right now, Bernie needs to be winning every state going forward (New York included) by margins of at least 58-42. After New York, he will have to win every state by margins of 64-36.
Thus, while it will not be mathematically over as it would be in a winner take all system, it still will be over in every other sense.
WDEL reports that lawmakers in Dover are considering a bill that would mandate all school elections in Delaware be done by mail. How about we broaden it to all elections, with same day registration?
There will be another Congressional debate/form between Sean Barney, Bryan Townsend, Lisa Blunt Rochester and Mike Miller this Wednesday, April 20, at 7 pm at William Penn High School. To attend the debate in person, you must RSVP with the Del Dems by clicking here.
Peter Beinart argues that the best the GOP can hope for in 2016 is to have Trump lose to Cruz, who in turn will lose to Clinton, who in turn will lose to a revived mainstream GOP in 2020. In other words, Cruz would be the far right’s long hoped for very conservative nominee, and no one can excuse a loss by saying Ted Cruz was not conservative enough.
[A] Cruz defeat at the hands of Clinton this November leaves the GOP in a better position to rebuild than a Trump loss to Clinton does. By conventional standards, Trump isn’t all that conservative. That means, if Trump loses this fall, conservative purists can again make the argument they made after John McCain and Mitt Romney lost: The GOP needs to nominate a true believer. And they’ll have such a true believer waiting in the wings as the early front-runner in 2020: Ted Cruz. After all, losing the nomination to Trump would put Cruz in second place, and the GOP has a history of giving second-place finishers the nomination the next time around (Bob Dole, McCain, Romney). Plus, after building the best grassroots network of all the 2016 candidates, Cruz — who’ll be barely 50 years old in four years — would enter 2020 with a big organizational edge. Thus, the GOP would remain at the mercy of its extreme base.
[A] Cruz loss in November would undercut the right’s argument against choosing a more moderate nominee. To be sure, some grassroots conservatives would find a way to rationalize Cruz’s defeat and preserve their belief that a right-wing ideologue can win. But more pragmatic conservatives would be confirmed in their belief that the next GOP nominee must reach out to Millennials, Latinos, and single women, and offer more to working-class Americans than just less taxation and regulation. A Cruz general-election defeat would strengthen the “Reformicons” who are trying to reform the GOP in some of the ways New Democrats reformed their party in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The problem with this is assuming that the Trump base of the party that constitutes 40% of the GOP vote will come back to the GOP in 2018 and 2020.
E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post summarizes the state of the race and opines on what Clinton and Sanders owe progressives:
Any doubt that Clinton and Sanders are fed up with each other was put to rest in Thursday’s debate. In big block type, the New York Daily News proclaimed them “Brooklyn Brawlers.” They went at each other as if there would be no tomorrow after New York voted. That’s pretty much true.
You sensed from Sanders’s aggressiveness that he knows he’s on the edge of effective elimination. If he does win on Tuesday, he’d throw the Democratic race into turmoil and make Clinton’s path to the nomination much rockier. A Clinton victory in New York, which polls suggest is more likely, would all but seal the deal for her. […]
At a time when ideological polarization between the parties is so high, such contrasts [on issues such as banking regulations, in that Clinton and Sanders are much closer to each other than they are Republicans] should be obvious. But the bad blood between many of Sanders’s supporters and Clinton obscures the stakes and presents Democrats with a special challenge.
Their victories (compare 2008 with 2010, or 2012 with 2014) depend on high participation among younger voters, who are turned on to Sanders and, in many cases, turned off to Clinton. The pro-Sanders young are unlikely to vote Republican, but if too many stay home in November, much of what Sanders and Clinton believe in could be consigned to the dustbin.
That’s why the day after New York, the Brooklyn Brawlers would do well to sit down over a couple of Brooklyn Brewery ales and figure out a way forward.
And the answer is not “well, Hillary should abdicate in favor of Sanders.”
Jill Abramson at The Guardian says HBO’s latest movie, Confirmation, concerning the nomination battle over Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harrassment, shows how women were treated in Washington, and that not much has changed.
The tableau of the lone woman testifying before a congressional committee of white men has become iconic. It is the dominant image in Confirmation, the gripping HBO film about Anita Hill’s testimony in the Clarence Thomas hearings before the Senate judiciary committee in 1991, which premiere[d] on Saturday. […]
I was in the room when the real Anita Hill testified. At the time, I, too, was struck by the contrast between her vivid testimony about how Thomas described pornographic films, including one starring Long Dong Silver, and the formal setting, the crystal-laden, mahogany Russell Caucus Room where Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas were heard. […]
Although those hearings were a generation ago, Confirmation brought to mind more recent congressional proceedings with a lone woman witness facing a mainly white, male set of inquisitors, and another striking outfit, this time dark purple. Hillary Clinton was the star of this show trial, the Benghazi hearings last fall.
Both sets of hearings were billed as fact-finding exercises, but turned out to be poisonous displays of partisanship.
The movie did not portray Joe Biden in the most favorable light, though Greg Kinnear nailed Biden’s accent and mannerisms.
More on the movie from Esther Breger at The New Republic:
Clarence Thomas is portrayed with empathy by Wendell Pierce (The Wire, Treme) as a husband and father; a black man terrified that powerful, hypocritical white men will ruin his career. In advance publicity for the film, the director and screenwriter have been frustratingly insistent that the film takes no sides. “It’s hard to know what the truth is,” Famuyiwa told Mother Jones last week. Even after repeated probing, no one involved with the film has just come out and said, “I believe Anita,” even though it’s hard to watch the film and come to any other conclusion.
This equivocating hasn’t prevented Confirmation from being attacked by some conservatives as liberal propaganda. That’s ironic, since the film’s real villain isn’t Thomas, who is presented as almost a figure of pity; nor is it Senator John Danforth, Thomas’s close friend who led the charge to smear Anita’s name; nor odious Republican senators such as Alan Simpson and Strom Thurmond; nor Kenneth Duberstein, a White House aide played ineffectually by Eric Stonestreet. The most infuriating character in Confirmation is Joe Biden, not because he’s hostile to Hill (he isn’t), but because the figure of male power he represents—benign, feckless, incurious—is one that’s still so familiar to women, especially within liberal circles.
Emphasis mine. I agree.
Brian Beutler at The New Republic says Bernie Sanders Won’t Go Quietly Into the Night and Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, should be grateful that he’s sticking around.
The ninth Democratic primary debate revealed almost no new daylight between Clinton and Sanders. It mainly just revealed that Sanders won’t go quietly into the night. Sanders was withering in his criticisms, but the criticisms were almost all familiar. Occam’s razor suggests his strategy is intended to avoid a blowout defeat in New York’s presidential primary on Tuesday, which would probably constitute a fatal blow to his candidacy.
And yet despite the campaign’s bitter turn, despite the fact that Sanders’s Hail Mary tack is much more likely to damage Clinton in the general election than to secure the nomination for himself, supporters should maintain a fondness for him as a fundamentally decent rival who has left Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the country better off. At the stage where all kindness has drained out of a campaign, most candidates find themselves tempted to sacrifice their remaining integrity to win. Sanders, by contrast, reminded skeptics why his supporters have been so loyal: With everything on the line, given the opportunity to obfuscate at Clinton’s expense, Sanders held firm even to views that promise to damage him in the state that could seal his fate.
Beutler was talking about Sanders’ Israel answer. I am convinced that the answer neither helped him nor hurt him. Those turned off by his answer were likely already with Hillary and those who would like his answer were likely already with Bernie. Like Beutler says, if Bernie tried to go all hawkish and pro-Israel, he would have likely damaged himself with his own supporters.
“Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is expected to announce this week that Alexander Hamilton’s face will remain on the front of the $10 bill and a woman will replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 bill,” a senior government source told CNN.
Long overdue on two fronts: a woman on our money and that genocidal fuck Jackson off it.
Washington Post: “Looking forward, there’s reason for optimism in the Trump camp. He looks well positioned to take the lion’s share of New York’s 95 delegates Tuesday. Seven days later, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island vote — these should be good states for Trump. It’s not until May 3, in Indiana, where Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich will go all out, that Trump would be likely to face the prospect of defeat again.”
“Then there’s this fact: Recent polling suggests little appetite in the Republican Party to keep the nomination from Trump if he has the most votes but can’t get to 1,237 delegates before the convention.”
Clinton supporters are angry? What, you Berniebros are all calm and collected? LOLz.
Hillary’s campaign website lists a lot of issues that earn her a checkbox in the media summaries of “for” or “against.” But Hillary has a tell that reveals how strongly she supports her position:
If she says “I will fight for…” or “I will…” that is probably her strongest committment.
If she says “I support…” or other weasel words, you know that’s a straight-up pander, and she will be happy to compromise or let it slide altogether.
Here are some examples; there are plenty more:
Hillary will “Fight for paid family leave and affordable child care…” “fight to protect the Affordable Care Act…”
but “She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local effort…”
“Cruz would be the far right’s long hoped for very conservative nominee, and no one can excuse a loss by saying Ted Cruz was not conservative enough. ”
Part of me wants him to get the nomination for just that reason. But the other part of me is afraid he might win. I’m too conservative to take the risk. I’ve encountered the law of unintended consequences too many times to not take that into account.
The day after New York, the Brooklyn Brawlers would do well to sit down over a couple of Brooklyn Brewery ales and figure out a graceful exit for Hillary.
Fixed!
Look – I’ve been a lurker. But the fact is Sanders is a better candidate and campaigner. He matches up better against either Republican. From a practical perspective – Clinton needs to stop drawing this out and quit.
Also – What Dave said re Cruz. Word.
DD, you might want to edit your observation about Greg Kinnear’s portrayal. I know it’s a spellcheck error, but still.
DD has the thinnest of all skin. He can lob childish bombs all day, but one snarky poll and he’s back to BernieBro (a really lame insult). Seriously dude, you are either the type of guy who yells ‘IN YOUR FACE” and dances around after winning tic-tac-toe, or you are actually really scared that your Dear Leader might not win this nomination.
Lots of name calling going on on both sides. Actually discussing policy and how things get done… not so much. And this goes for both sides. This has been one of the shallowest primaries I’ve ever witnessed.
Pandora, I agree. The camera lens has been pulled back. The question raised by Sanders is simply – what do Democrats believe? Are they slightly less noxious Republicans, or are they something other than that? Are they something more in keeping with the history and traditions of the Democratic Party.
Clinton (for obvious reasons) wants to focus on the minutia because she and her husband are the architects of the “slightly less noxious Republican” Democratic Party.
I know we can say the Clinton-Bush style of vilifying your opponent and dragging them into the gutter (where those type of politicians thrive) sure has worked this time around.
Either the insanely sexist phrase “berniebro”.. which de-legitimizes all of the women who support Sanders.. or that ol’ Boomer fallback of “when you grow up, you’ll understand”. Or Clinton’s transparent misrepresentations of Sanders’ time in congress… How about how HIllHacks gleefully make all of us out to be AAA… or some mythical Trump supporter in disguise… (you have your internet comments, but I have yet to meet one person…in real life…. who currently supports Bernie, but will vote Trump)
News flash… if you are one of the entitled DNC third-wayers who is supporting Clinton, you are punching down. You’re the power. You’re the establishment that is failing people. Either own it or change.
Anyway, as long as the mornings start off with a open-thread filled with churlish jabs at people REALLY trying to make things better, I’ll be salty AF and fight back. Rolling over for scoundrels is a Moderate D thing.
“Clinton supporters angry”? As the officially neutral Sussex County Democratic Chair, if have the “benefit” of receiving emails, lots of emails, from supporters of both Clinton and Sanders. There is no comparison. I am disgusted by some of the venomous, personal attacks on Clinton. If I didn’t know some of these Sanders supporters, I would think the attacks came from right-wing conspiracy believing Republicans.
Support the candidate of your choice. Support means helping that person. Not tearing down the opponent-that only lowers you and your candidate. In November we need to be united to beat Trump or Cruz or whoever the Republicans nominate. The choice is believing Bernie can deliver all he promises, or Hillary what she believes is achievable, -vs- what a Republican president and congress will do to the advances we have made in recent years.
LOL. Thinnest of all skin? So when I advocate for Hillary and defend her against BernieBro’s Republican attacks on her, it is because I have thin skin. If I was tough, or more adult, I would let Sander’s lies and attacks go untouched.
Gotcha.
“(you have your internet comments, but I have yet to meet one person…in real life…. who currently supports Bernie, but will vote Trump)”
Hear, hear.
“News flash… if you are one of the entitled DNC third-wayers who is supporting Clinton, you are punching down. You’re the power. You’re the establishment that is failing people. Either own it or change.”
I am currently trying to fit this on a bumper sticker.
You are correct, Mitch. “The Bern” is a result of the venom spewed from the mouth of self righteous purist progressives.
“News flash… if you are one of the entitled DNC third-wayers who is supporting Clinton, you are punching down. You’re the power. You’re the establishment that is failing people. Either own it or change.”
News flash… Not all progressives support Bernie, no matter how much say it. I am a progressive and I despise Bernie’s purist tactics.
Call yourself whatever you want. You support a candidate who stumped for a crime bill ( i know she didnt sign it, but she gave speeches for it) that resulted in mass incarceration and doomed an entire generation. You claim to be a progressive, but you support a candidate who wouldn’t commit to improving the lives of those making minimum wage until they had to… well after a different candidate had championed it for years….. and even now falls short of what it should be. You can identify however you choose, but if you are a progressive, so is Tom Carper and John Carney… which i guess makes me an anarchist by comparison.
“I know we can say the Clinton-Bush style of vilifying your opponent and dragging them into the gutter (where those type of politicians thrive) sure has worked this time around.
Either the insanely sexist phrase “berniebro”.. which de-legitimizes all of the women who support Sanders.. or that ol’ Boomer fallback of “when you grow up, you’ll understand”. Or Clinton’s transparent misrepresentations of Sanders’ time in congress… How about how HIllHacks gleefully make all of us out to be AAA… or some mythical Trump supporter in disguise… (you have your internet comments, but I have yet to meet one person…in real life…. who currently supports Bernie, but will vote Trump)”
Oh boy! If you really believe this primary has been nasty you have no idea of what’s coming in the general – and that goes for Bernie/his supporters, too, if he would win the nomination. Hillary has pulled a lot of punches (because she’ll need Bernie supporters in November, not because she’s nice), and I do mean a lot. For that matter, so have many Hillary supporters on this blog. We didn’t go there.
Bottom Line: Every day that Hillary Clinton doesn’t drop out is a good day for Cruz or trump.
And I did’t say progressive when I called you a 3rd way entitled sell-out. But how very Clintonian of you to hit back in a way that had nothing to do with what I said. I’ve got nothing to lose. According to you, The Perfect One has already won this thing. By that standard, there is no reason for you to continue fighting a vanquished foe…. instead, you remind us every day exactly the kind of establishment that needs to be torn down. Well Done!
“You support a candidate who stumped for a crime bill ( i know she didnt sign it, but she gave speeches for it) that resulted in mass incarceration and doomed an entire generation.”
*sigh* And your candidate actually voted for it – actually made it law. He also referred to the people the bill was aimed at as sociopaths.
Can we please stop this? The conversation we should be having is how to correct this law. That would be a policy discussion, so, I guess, we won’t be having that conversation.
Del dem pushed for Jack Markell bragging how pogressive he was
@Andy So did Jason, and, IIRC, the rest of the DL team.
^ I got fooled by Markell too. Just because someone isnt John Carney doesn’t mean they aren’t John Carney (try to make some sense outta that). But this is Delaware… where being a “Bearded Marxist Democrat” means trying to be the new Joe Lieberman.
We were all fooled about Markell. And even if we weren’t, the other choice was Carney.
How are Markell and Clinton any different? I see them as the exact same kind of Democrat. If you support Clinton, you must be a fan how how Markell has done his job.
“How are Markell and Clinton any different? I see them as the exact same kind of Democrat.”
I want to agree with you, but I have to think a President Hillary will be informed by the sound of Bernie’s voice ringing in her ears, and the knowledge that people under 45 prefer Bernie’s policies. Markell didn’t have that. Hillary will be think twice before appointing Republicans to the Cabinet or extending Republican tax cuts or putting Social Security cuts on the table, like Obama did.
Sure, that’s it, Ben. If people support a candidate then they support 100% of that candidate’s platform. I’m not a big “throwing the baby out with the bath water” kinda person. And if you have relationships in your life that you sustain (spouse, children, parents, friends) then neither are you! 😉
I just love the way Hillary and her supporters need to be informed by Bernie and his supporters on how to be progressive.
I do too! It’s a shame they arent listening.
Hillary will be think twice before appointing Republicans to the Cabinet or extending Republican tax cuts or putting Social Security cuts on the table, like Obama did.
Maybe she’ll create a nature preserve for unicorns too.
She’ll pay attention to people under 45 if they stay on her case. If they fade away to their keyboards like they did for Obama, then there’s no point in paying attention to a constituency who won’t stay on the field to push for their agenda.
Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater… I just don’t see how criticisms of Clinton are met with whiny pejoratives, where as the exact same criticisms of Markell are agreed with. Makes no sense… but I’m just an unrealistic kid who needs adults to government for me.
“then there’s no point in paying attention to a constituency who won’t stay on the field to push for their agenda.”
That attitude won’t keep Congress in the midterms, and puts the Presidency at risk in 2020.
It took months of the Occupy Wall Street protests to get Obama even talking about income inequality. Are you saying Hillary needs something similar from the under-45s to motivate her?
And least when republicans lose, they blame themselves. Dems blame people who they failed for being upset at their failure. If this primary has taught me one thing, it is that I am no Democrat.
“If somebody promises you something for free, read the fine print,” said the candidate who gave multiple speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225,000.00 a pop.
That attitude won’t keep Congress in the midterms, and puts the Presidency at risk in 2020.
This attitude forgets that there are millions of voters under 45 and Hillary (altho over 45) has just one vote. If the people who need the government to deal with their interests don’t show up to vote on the regular, then they don’t get the government they want. It *is* that simple.
I fully expect big corporations and 1%ers to continue to support Clinton, even after she concedes.
And least when republicans lose, they blame themselves.
They blame themselves for not being conservative enough. Because more people will vote if they are more conservative.
Dems blame people who they failed and who didn’t show up to vote for something that wouldn’t fail themfor being upset at their failure.
Fixed that for you.
If Hillary becomes President it will be because the under-45s voted for her. She will own any enthusiasm gap she may dig. It’s easy enough for her to avoid with leadership.
Jason’s comedy routine is quite good. He’s like that Iraqi Government Spokesman proclaiming the imminent defeat and destruction of the advancing American army.
DD, Lock up all your firearms and booze tomorrow night. I don’t want you falling into a black depression and making any irreversible decisions.
That’s right, let it all out, get it all in when you can. Because after tomorrow, the primary will be over and Hillary will be the nominee.
Ladies and Gentleman, I would like to call a time out in our savage Civil War to wish the wonderful Pandora a wonderful birthday today! Have a good one.
Happy Birthday Pandora.
Aw shucks. Thanks!
And guess what I’m doing for my BD- yep, volunteering for a local Dem candidate.
If you like to support “comprehensive immigration reform” with arguments about Dreamer kids and the price of tomatoes, there’s this (from yesterday’s News Journal). Chris Coons is up to his neck in this crap:
She will own any enthusiasm gap she may dig.
The people who don’t show up to routinely vote for their own interests own their own enthusiasm gap. Your government working for you is not the New Coke, where corporate interests will get the message if you aren’t buying their crap. Because if your government is not working for you, it *is* working for the people who are showing up to make their interests plain.
What is this magical world where people can just pester their government into doing what they want? If the people you vote for cant be trusted to make good on their promises without constant hand holding, elect new people who will.
“What is this magical world where people can just pester their government into doing what they want?”
Tea Party.
In that case, I want to elect progressives who have the same zeal and drive as the teaparty. These “idealistic” dreams many of you decry as “impossible” can be done by people with a backbone and real convictions.
Oh, also.. happiest of birthdays.
How many seats have the TeaPartiers given to the other party in the name of purity by attacking their own? I’m not a fan of sacrificing the good for the perfect.
Tea Party – you mean the movement that took control of the House from the pragmaDems in 2010? I’ll take some of that for progressives, please.
What is this magical world where people can just pester their government into doing what they want?
The Tea Party is a good example.
Corporate Interests are another.
And before you have on about not having enough money — you can vote. A corporation cannot.
what is being fought for matters. the tea party throws away elections because they wont accept that rape is real. Are you gonna tell me that fighting for a living wage is the same as suggesting that pregnancy can be prevented through mind control?
“And before you have on about not having enough money — you can vote. A corporation cannot.”
In a world where lobbyists constantly bribe politicians and Citizens United exists, that statement is true, but meaningless. If they aren’t allowed to vote, if money isn’t the most important tool in getting politicians to do what you want, explain to me why they have so much power.
In a world where lobbyists constantly bribe politicians and Citizens United exists, that statement is true, but meaningless.
Nope. Voting really is what matters. Which is why Bernie doesn’t have a lead in delegates now, right?
If voting mattered, that’s all we would have to do… But you yourself have suggested that voting in an election isn’t enough. That unless politicians are constantly pushed, they wont do any of the stuff they said they would to earn those votes in the first place. Something about showing up every 4 years, then fading into keyboards…
Good lord. I understand government is a compromise thing. When it’s functioning properly, both sides have the best interests of everyone at heart, and the debate is just about the means to a common end.
WELL we have one side dedicated to the eradication of a Religion, sending women back into the kitchen, gays back into the closet and poor people to an early death… so, they dont deserve to be compromised with.. but we have to. As long as we have to find a middle ground with those morons, might as well start as far to the left as we can so that “middle” doesnt end up looking like something Nixon would have run on. that’s all i’m saying.. and really, that’s the basis of all my qualms with Clinton. I know she is going to make deals… I worry about her opening bids.
If voting mattered, that’s all we would have to do… But you yourself have suggested that voting in an election isn’t enough. That unless politicians are constantly pushed, they wont do any of the stuff they said they would to earn those votes in the first place. Something about showing up every 4 years, then fading into keyboards…
Seriously? The thing that you need to say is that you don’t want to be involved with your government. We give you plenty of examples of how groups get the government to move the way they want — the civil rights movement (ALL of them) was about constantly pushing the government. It works. Because politicians will respond to the greatest pain. Like everyone else.
“The thing that you need to say is that you don’t want to be involved with your government.” Yep that’s it. My mistake was engaging with you. I fell in to the trap. Wont happen again.
@c “Nope. Voting really is what matters. Which is why Bernie doesn’t have a lead in delegates now, right?”
And never will. It’s already over. Sanders lost. There is no plausible path forward that results in a win for him.
And that is why the posturing of Sanders’ supporters here really is so strange.
p.s. What a crappy poll! How about adding the choice: “Because Sanders and his supporters don’t know how to lose gracefully.”
“what is being fought for matters. the tea party throws away elections because they wont accept that rape is real. Are you gonna tell me that fighting for a living wage is the same as suggesting that pregnancy can be prevented through mind control?”
That isn’t remotely what I’m telling you. You asked, what is this world where people pestering their elected officials into doing what they want? I answered that question.
Pandora, I was responding to mike. Sorry for the confusion.
Puck made what looks like a similar point. You also point out whats happening in these conservative states that decided to take leaps rather than increments. I dont want to be like them policy-wise.. incase any troll is thinking about that line of attack… but i would like to see the people who claim to represent “the people’ be a little more pro-active, rather than waiting for the PAC with the loudest voice or biggest check….. You (the infinite you… not YOU) asked for my vote and told me what you would do… now friggin do it.
I’m a big fan of, “Do your flippin’ job!”
Here’s where it gets tricky. Candidates run on a platform that covers many things, so prioritizing those issues comes into play. The way to make sure your priority remains their priority is to keep engaging; to keep letting them know that this issue matters and will impact your vote. All politicians care about votes.
Look at it this way… if a candidate knows which demographic will vote in the midterm (no matter what, even if not for them) then they’ll steer their platform towards those voters. Not showing up to vote doesn’t send a message, well… maybe it sends the message that those voters don’t really care about certain issues and the candidate doesn’t need to court them – but they will cater to those who will vote for them.
Seriously, not voting doesn’t accomplish anything. Losing elections, or the fear of losing them, does.
Who said anything about not voting? I HATE THAT.
If you dont like anyone… at least write in Jello Biafra or something… send a damn message. I still don’t know that I’ve committed to voting for Hillary in the General…. I had, but since then, I’ve started to see signs of a “centrist” pivot which I wont be able to support. Luckily, we’re in a state no one cares about that always goes the same way.
I’m supporting the old guy from Vermont in the primary. Even if he loses, his issues are critical for average people and their kids
“I’ve started to see signs of a “centrist” pivot which I wont be able to support.”
Can I ask what centrist pivot you’ve seen?
@p “Can I ask what centrist pivot you’ve seen?”
She’s starting to ignore Bernie. That’s the pivot.
Just wait until next week when DE, MD, CT, PA, and RI all vote.
Then he’ll completely disappear from her center of focus.