VOX Mainstream Democrats shouldn’t fear Bernie Sanders
VOX After Obama, Democrats need a new theory of change. Pete Buttigieg thinks he’s got it.
Insider: Sanders to Jeremy Corbyn
Well I am pretty sure that Bernie is one way to get me to vote for Trump again...
60 comments:
"Well I am pretty sure that Bernie is one way to get me to vote for Trump again..."
Then you will be remembered for supporting the rise of a Fascist State in America, where the rule of law means nothing, and elections are not free and fair.
Congrats.
Moose
We are assured that it's no problem that Bernie is 78 years old with a heart condition. Let's just say, I have my doubts.
--Hiram
Moose,
What isn't free or fair?
The parties are free to select terrible candidates and we the voters are free to pick which one will do less harm to our country.
I think Klobuchar looks like the DEMs best option at this time.
I am not sure much of America is ready for a gay man or a dem socialist to be President...
Hiram,
In Bernie's case his VP may be a very important factor... :-)
"What isn't free or fair?"
Foreign interference, gerrymandering, voter harassment, purging voter rolls, minority rule, etc.
All it takes is a single brain cell to figure that out.
"I am not sure much of America is ready for a gay man or a dem socialist to be President..."
You're projecting. Most of America is in favor of M4A. Most of America doesn't give a rat's behind who is or isn't gay.
Moose
Moose
Well foreign interference seems pretty weak...
Gerrymandering is apparently legal in most cases...
Voter harassment ?
Purging inaccurate rolls... What is your point?
If you don't like the electoral college and State rights you may want to move to France. (By the way I am in Charles Degaulle Airport writing this.
If you nominate Bernie or Pete, we will see who is correct...
The fact is, lots of people who opposed Hitler were really awful people. Bad as Hitler was, maybe he was better than the alternative. At least Hitler was strong and would tell it like it is.
--Hiram
"Purging inaccurate rolls... What is your point?"
if the rolls were inaccurate, then why were thousands of actual voters purged?
"Well foreign interference seems pretty weak..."
So you disagree with ALL of the US intelligence that says Russia interfered in 2016? And we know that nothing has been done about it, yet you're unconcerned. We also know that Trump tried to coerce a foreign government to interfere in the current election.
It seems you don't care, as long as you get what you want. Typical Trumpist behavior. As usual, you're no fence-sitter.
"Gerrymandering is apparently legal in most cases..."
Slavery was legal at one point, too. Doesn't make it right.
"Purging inaccurate rolls... What is your point?"
If even ONE actual voter is removed from the rolls, it should be considered a felony. Or do you not care about fair elections?
At least the French know how to hit the streets in protest. We're awfully lazy and complacent in this country.
Moose
Hiram,
I am not sure why you like to jump back to Hitler often... For me it undermines any argument you are offering.
Sean,
Likely they did not keep their address up to date?
Moose,
Though I find Russian and Domestic manipulation of our social media, and even Trump's attempt to get an old potential offense investigated for political reasons frustrating. I am not sure that it makes our system less "free or fair"... Trolls exist in every system.
Though gerrymandering seems wrong to me and you, the courts still see it as fair and legal. Not sure what to do about it since both sides do it to some extent.
Keep your information up to date, reply to requests for updates and it won't get purged... Do you think no maintenance should occur on those databases?
Or we Americans have it REALLY REALLY GOOD, so there really is no reason to protest... :-)
PEW Voter Roll Purging
are all districts purged equally? it seems like purging would have the most impact on poor people.
When Balance Comes at the Expense of the Truth
America’s democracy is failing. Here’s why.
Four ways America’s system of government is rigged against democracy (and Democrats).
Laurie,
Yes, it will impact people who are more transient.
Those who do not keep up their legal address information.
Is that the poor?
I did find the first link interesting, and I do agree that the Far Right lies more. The FB stuff that my Right leaning friends link to are easy to pick apart. And the post to that silly fluff more often.
"He points to a high percentage of false statements made by extreme right- and left-wing news outlets, but fails to note that the right-wing outlets spewed false claims at double the rate of the left-wing ones. Indeed, the Buzzfeed article he cites concludes that right-wing lying on Facebook “helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump.”"
"To be sure, most of Patterson’s proposed solutions—minimizing infotainment reporting, attack journalism, and the obsession with the political game—would lead to better journalism in America. Journalists should also stick to a simple prescription: Stop seeking balance at the expense of the truth."
The VOX title is definitely leading and judgmental. Maybe a form of attack journalism?
"America’s democracy is failing. Here’s why. Four ways America’s system of government is rigged against democracy (and Democrats)."
"democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
Now I realize that you want a different form of democracy than ours. One where people in highly populated regions can subjugated those in sparsely populated regions. I like our system better.
And after a week in India, I thank heavens for our system. My co-workers had little nice to say about their parliamentary system and hundreds of parties.
I am not sure why you like to jump back to Hitler often... For me it undermines any argument you are offering.
I think it's okay to undermine my arguments. Even the best arguments are capable of being undermined. Declaring the Hitler period period off limits deprives us of the valuable lessons it teaches. And I notice that Trump et al, so quick to condemn Hitler references have no problem with calling people like me socialists or communists. Maybe their arguments aren't capable of being undermined because they have no validity to begin with.
--Hiram
I guess I would like to learn from the experience and yet...
Acknowledge that things were very different in that episode of history...
The Weimar Republic was a disaster and the people were desperate. Maybe more like Venezuela than like the USA.
Though the similarities do exist, since so many people are now striving to pleasure Trump instead of fulfilling their professional responsibilities.
Weimar Republic
Rise of Nazi Germany
Things are always different, so it follows that if we can't learn from different things, we can't learn at all. For myself, I have always thought there were lots of similarities between Weimar Germany and where America is today. I have talked a lot about that over the years, and I was talking about that before the election of Trump.
A basic political problem afflicting Weimar Germany, was that a broad spectrum of the electorate and political class rejected it's political legitimacy. In monarchies, the function of the monarch is to provide that legitimacy, a source of authority excepted by most if not all. Quite simply, in a monarchy, authority comes f rom God. You may not accept that, but it's something that is tough to argue with. It's a matter of faith. But what happens when you take that away? In Germany, the Kaiser was God's chosen, and once he was packed off to Belgium, what replaced him. In Weimar Germany, the answer was nothing.
I see these same signs, this same loss of political legitimacy in big ways and small in America today. The minority presidents don't help. A constitution which places the election of a president in the electoral college doesn't help. And we see it in the discourse. I often see people argue that taxation is a form of theft. It is if the taking is without lawful authority, which would be the case if the government is illegitimate.
--Hiram
"a broad spectrum of the electorate and political class rejected it's political legitimacy"
That makes me wonder...
Who are these people today?
The Liberals who deny Trump is our legitimate and legally elected President?
The Conservatives who dislike excessive government spending and taxation?
The Liberals who deny Trump is our legitimate and legally elected President?
When I said across the political spectrum I certainly meant to include liberals. While I don't deny Trump's legal legitimacy; he not Hillary is our president, I certainly believe a country that would choose someone like Trump has lost it's moral legitimacy. I cannot believe that a senate which deliberately denies itself access to evidence, has a moral right to govern us.
In China, they used to say that a dynasty would lose the mandate of heaven. I think if America hasnb't lost its mandate of heaven, that it is certainly in danger of losing it.
--Hiram
The founders made a conscious decision to undermine the legitimacy of the federal government in order to guarantee the continuation of slavery. It's the dirty deal that made our country possible. And it's haunted us for 200 plus years since.
--Hiram
Where as I see the system stronger because of "region weighted voting"...
And it has apparently only caused a problem 5 times in ~240 years...
"And it has apparently only caused a problem 5 times in ~240 years..."
More accurately, 5 out 58 times. And 2 of the last 5.
I assume the rate is increasing because the DEMs are moving too far Left to fast for us good old boys...
I love the way our system encourages slow steady changes and makes herky jerky changes difficult. :-)
Where as I see the system stronger because of "region weighted voting"...
Except for when Civil War breaks out. I know there is this theory out there that region weighted voting mean that presidential candidates will campaign more in Wyoming but somehow it never works out that way.
--Hiram
Well the DEMs better start doing something to win over the red and purple states or Trump is going to beat them worse than last time.
"I love the way our system encourages slow steady changes and makes herky jerky changes difficult."
You love the way that it prevents changes you don't like. Democrats have won 4 of the last 5 popular votes, but over that time have lost control of the courts for a generation.
Sean,
Those are the consequences of ignoring the rules of the game and the many people in Purple States.
If your team wants to win, find a platform with a broader base of support.
"find a platform with a broader base of support."
Democrats have won 4 of the last 5 popular votes.
Here you go again...
"the consequences of ignoring the rules of the game"
You need to win States, since you live in the United States of America.
You do not live in France or some other National democracy.
Or do you think you should play baseball by basketball's rules and complain when you lose?
No, I'm suggesting the rules of the game are outdated and should be changed. Something that has happened in both baseball and basketball.
Well... To change the rules you must first win the game...
Now how will the DEMs adjust to accomplish the goal?
Personally I think the rules are still relevant... That is unless we want to change our name... United States of America
Any ideas since France is taken? :-)
Small rural states would still have the Senate as a check and balance.
did you read the vox link? I find it surprising/interesting how you won't acknowledge how undemocratic the senate and electoral college are. You could agree that they're undemocratic and say you like it this way.
Why should white rural voters have so much more power?
Laurie,
Did you read the definition of...
“democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them
directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"?
Can you admit we have this here?
No where does it define the system....
"In the current Senate, the Republican “majority” represents about 15 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.”
The next winner of the Electoral College could lose the popular vote by as much as 6 percentage points"
Why is it so hard for to acknowledge this is not fair representation?
Well the DEMs better start doing something to win over the red and purple states or Trump is going to beat them worse than last time.
It's not going to mean campaigning in those tiny states despite the hopes of the founders. Even under the electoral system, presidential elections are fought in large states, not small states, because large states are where the votes are. I just don't see a way around that.
--Hiram
The rules for Trump are that only Trump gets to be Trump. Even if Democrats wanted to campaign like Trump, they media would never allow it. A recent example. Bloomberg is under attack for supporting racist "stop and frisk" policies from Trump despite the fact that Trump supports the very same racist policies. So what should we do in response? What will get us that desirable purple state support? Come out in favor of racist policies?
The trick for Trump as it is for any politician confronted with greater voters is to divide the opposition. Republicans do this in large part by reducing voter turnout. It's why they support Voter ID.
--Hiram
Laurie,
I personally don't care that the urban centers are under represented in Congress.
This is a really big country and I want people from every State / Region to have a voice.
To me it would be unfair if the urban centers could lord their power over everyone else who's lives and circumstances are very different.
2016 Precint Map
If folks in California think voters in Wyoming are so powerful... Maybe they should move there?
I think they would quickly understand that 1 rep and 2 senators is pretty wimpy... And you would even steal that influence from them. :-(
It seems to me that the campaigns are won in mid-size purple states lately..
Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, etc...
Now how to win these without supporting racist policies:
- Support strong border security, policies to dissuade walk up asylum requests and support the removal of illegal residents / workers. There is nothing racist about making people apply and be approved before they can enter and set up residency in the USA.
- Support policies that minimize abortions after the first trimester. Stop referring to only Mother's rights, and start acknowledging fetal rights.
- Support the rights of religious organizations and individuals along with LGBQ+, Women's Rights, etc
- Demand results / improvement from welfare recipients. Stop implying that people are entitled to food, housing, medicine, etc just because they stand on US soil.
- Start promoting merit / productivity based compensation policies within the public employee workforce. Stop supporting time served / degrees oriented compensation and job security methods.
If folks in California think voters in Wyoming are so powerful...
Actually they don't. That's why presidential candidates don't campaign there. That's why the idea that the electoral college ensures nationwide campaigns doesn't work in practice.
This is a really big country and I want people from every State / Region to have a voice.
Campaigns are fought in big states. Not all of them of course, just the ones with evenly divided voters. But where they aren't fought is in small states. West of Missouri, the presidential campaigns barely exist.
--Hiram
Only Republicans can succeed by being Republicans. If Democrats adopt Republican positions, they will lose the support of Democrats. The problem has never been that Democratic positions are unpopular. We do win the popular vote.
--Hiram
But by choosing to embrace some Far Left positions you win some battles but lose the war...
The choice your party makes...
By the way, the I am pretty sure the positions I raised are the Moderate positions, not the GOP positions.
I am not sure who in the middle supports:
- open borders
- easy abortions after the first trimester and denying that it is a little human
- forcing the religious to violate their faith
- continually giving money and services to those who choose to not help themselves
- protecting questionable employees, increasing costs, increasing taxes and reducing effectiveness...
The evidence shows more people vote for dems - for congress and the president. Maybe the GOP candidates need to moderate their views.
Someone asked me the other day why we couldn't have what many see as reasonable abortion restrictions and regulations such as they have in European countries. My answer was that because in this country, abortion has become a political issue and that tends to make compromise difficult or impossible. A pro life friend of mine told me that she couldn't compromise on the issue because it was a matter of principle.
As I see it, if you want restrictions on abortion, you have to give up abortion as a political issue. Is that something pro life people in America are willing to do?
--Hiram
Laurie and Hiram,
As you have noted, the DEMs are losing the game...
And instead of changing how they play the game they whine about the well established and very long standing rules being "unfair".
The GOP does not need to change their game until they again start losing the purple districts and states.
So if you want the DEMs to continue to lose, just keep pushing agendas that are not to attractive in the swing states. And even worse, double down on the more socialist sounding agenda...
Hiram,
Fetuses in a dumpster are a wonderful political issue for the Right in large part because the Left seems to refuse to in anyway question the woman's rights.
They seem adamant that the fetus with a beating heart is nothing but the equivalent to a tumor on the Mother's butt until at least 24 weeks, and even above.
This is no way to win supporters, when preemies are often born and survive at this time period.
My usual question for pro-choicers... Are you okay with a Mother chopping up that 26 wk baby when it is laying in the basinet? If not, why are you against protecting the same fetus in the womb?
I personally don't care much which party wins, they both have good and bad sides to them from my place in the center.
But if the DEMS really want to win they need to acknowledge the game's rules and play to win by them.
Whining is just what losers do...
And instead of changing how they play the game they whine about the well established and very long standing rules being "unfair".
Do I whine about the system being unfair? And if it is unfair, who is it unfair to? Democrats? Republicans? The American people?
"Fetuses in a dumpster are a wonderful political issue for the Right in large part because the Left seems to refuse to in anyway question the woman's rights.
Sure. That's why they prefer the issue instead of preferring to do something about it. Republicans are addicted to abortion politics. And like any addiction, it can cause them to do horrible things like supporting a Donald Trump for president.
--Hiram
But if the DEMS really want to win they need to acknowledge the game's rules and play to win by them.
Does that mean that we should solicit help from foreign governments in election campaigns? Should we now ask Soviet military intelligence to release Republican emails? Those things seem to be permitted under the new rules. Should we follow them? I do understand the Republican position on these things. They are wrong. Just not very wrong.
--Hiram
Were the nearly 50% of Minnesotans who voted for Trump but received no electoral votes treated fairly? Were the three million Americans who gave Hillary her majority whose votes were thrown away, treated fairly? But then, hasn't a country that allows it's politicians to seek foreign help to win elections really abandoned the notion of fairness? So what follows from that? Directing prosecutors to attack political opponents? Is that the kind of unfairness we shouldn't whine bout? That we should just "get over"?
--Hiram
Hiram,
Challenging politicians who court foreign governments to interfere in our elections is a useful action.
Working to stop the trolls (foreign and domestic) from using social media to mislead voters is a useful action.
Whining about the electoral college is just whining. You need to win to change it.
I was one of those 2016 Trump voters, we did not win MN so the electoral votes went to Clinton... This was our American democracy in action. My votes for McCain, Romney, etc came to naught... I am okay with this.
As I have noted elsewhere, abortion is such a good GOP topic because the DEMs don't compromise. As long as both parties pull equally hard on the rope... It will stay that way.
Whining about the electoral college is just whining. You need to win to change it.
Is it possible to advocate change in the electoral college without being accused of "whining"? If it were, would it be worth the effort? What's worse? Whining? Or throwing out three million votes?
"This was our American democracy in action. My votes for McCain, Romney, etc came to naught... I am okay with this."
Millions of Americans, not just you, had their votes thrown away. Some of them didn't mind. That didn't make it right.
--Hiram
Trump sent his personal attorney to Ukraine to solicit foreign interference in American elections. Does the fact that Democrats "whined" about that make that okay? Does the fact that Republicans were okay with that make it okay?
--Hiram
Of course, you put it in your party's platform and hope that it encourages people to support the party. Then the DEMs can change the rules when they win.
Just whining about 3 million "thrown out votes" is just that. They were not thrown out because they were counted and used to give Hillary the California electoral votes.
And the system has not changed since 2008 when the DEMs controlled the Congress and Presidency. It seems to me that DEMs did something during that period to lose the faith of many moderate voters. Maybe ACA, maybe an obsession with LGBT rights or this obsession with flooding America with the world's poor?
2020 is a new election and the DEMs hold there success in their hands.
Sometimes good systems yield bad results. Unfortunately the neither the Senate nor the citizens thought it was egregious enough to warrant removal from office. 67% is the threshold for a guilty vote.
It's not Democrats that the system cheats or for that matter Republicans. No candidate has a right to be president. That's why Trump had no due process rights during impeachment. It's people who have a right to have their vote meaningfully counted no matter where they live.
--Hiram
And my vote was meaningfully counted in MN.
My candidate lost... That is way the chips fall sometimes.
Post a Comment