The followers of the Republican circus frighten me far more than those driving their party’s clown car. ‘At this moment only,’ I don’t feel they are worth discussing (unless there is some unforeseen dark-horse galloping in to town on a moonless night). They will be a roadblock for any Dem-Prez in office.
Two weeks ago Trevor Noah of “The Daily Show” comically explained the Bernie and Hillary differences like this: “The big difference right now between Bernie Sanders and Hillary is Bernie Sanders is shooting for the stars even if the rocket ship might blow up, and Hillary is almost like ‘Let’s just fly to Akron and get there in one piece.’” (Interesting that Trevor oftentimes doesn’t say Hillary Clinton but generally does say Bernie Sanders… The joke is, however, perceptive, I think.)
So, considering that neither is perfect, and each has strengths, their points of view are similar (I did say ‘similar’), they both have experience... who would you vote for as the Democratic candidate if the primary was held in your state today and you were voting for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders:
Head-up with your choice then make your argument.
The U.S., by virtue of its winner-take-all elections, is set up as a two-party political system. If a third party were to become strong, it would likely mean the eventual death of one of the other two. I don't think our system could sustain multiple (3 or more) strong parties for very long.
New York was a pretty resounding win for Trump and Clinton. If they repeat that next week, the races could just about be over. On the GOP side, we have already reached the point that Trump is the only candidate with a mathematical chance to reach the number of delegates required to win before the GOP convention. Tuesday's wipeout made it impossible for Cruz to make it pre-convention.
Clinton & Trump are the clear winners
This is a small aside regarding the Democrats & Republicans ‘parties.’ I heard on a radio program covering the primary election today in New York that a citizen was turned away from the poles because she was not affiliated with the parties on the ballot. The explanation was eye-opening for me. How stupid it is that I did not know… or was even curious enough to ask. The two parties are really not affiliated with our government at all though they run it. The ‘Parties’ are clubs, independently run and operated with each state having a chapter. They make their own bylaws regarding everything in their organization including how voting is decided because it’s ‘their club’ to do with as they wish. They get the rest of us to pay for their actual elections for their non governmental organizations. Though the primary election is a public forum the mentioned citizen could not vote because she would need to be a member of a club to vote in it. The general election is another story, however the fraternity really control our votes. The Electoral Colleges get to choose, not us. The parties are just like a debating teams, rugby teams, or wrestling squads. So our country is run by two un-sportsman like rivals who's sole intent is to win the game in order to get more affiliate support because of their better ratings. Who can afford to support those popularity shares? The Kochs, fossil fuel company, the tobacco industry, etc. I think this country is a flawed experiment using polluted compounds mixed in dirty beakers.
You vote based on registration.... good luck to them both.
The premise that things will remain the same if we vote for anyone other than Bernie is not quite as accurate as we allow ourselves to believe those changes to be from the advertisements… trusting that ‘the change’ is for the better. The Reagan ‘trickle down economy,’ was really the big switch in direction for this country and it took time to have its major effect. This is a return back to what was historically known as “laissez faire” (1870 to World War II). Rather than equal access (the equal field of potential that I keep bring up) switched to give free reign to those most wealthy so that they could grow the economy especially after the bad economic presidency of Jimmy Carter. There should be enough crumbs falling from the gold plates of the rich. This was that snake-oil promise. 'It would more than make up for causation of the lessoning of influence by those of lesser means while setting up the potential for a plutocracy.' This was the seed for the birth of Fox News from the brainchild of Roger Ailes. He is only the poster child of this kind of ‘I’ve got the money therefore, I’m right, you’re wrong and I have the financial voice to pay for the politics to promote my point of view.’ The first George Bush just kept things going on the Reagan right leaning trajectory. Like with most things over time and with repetition even a lie sounds like it is the truth. At this point it was twelve years of a lie. The first Clinton continued that mechanically produced phenomenon further. (then twenty years of a lie). The misdirections of the second Bush… OK I’m being kind here… could not have happened without the twenty years that led up to it. (Darrell please correct any of my mistakes here. You are far more the expert on most of this, not I.) Bush and Cheney began the real ‘reign of terror’ and set up a hazy projection away from themselves and onto the trouble in the Middle-East. These two hombres did not perform the atrocities of a Saddam Hussein killing hundreds. Rather they set up war of global proportions that is now still killing millions.
The unrest we have today built upon fear and greed is not the crossroad we think we are at. Rather, it is a wide open battlefield. There is no one location. There are Republican sheep being shepherded with guns-a-blazin’ across the filed and plenty of Democratic cats with even more guns who don’t take direction so well.
Our outrageously overcomplicated government did not take a right-hand turn to get us where we are. It took years of millions of people simply gathering on the right-side of the deck, sailing on the ‘ship of state’ because they were told that the waves would come up on the left-side and wash them all away even though the waters all around were relatively calm. And the left uses some of the same kind of scare-tactics now though to a much lesser degree. Bernie says he will change the course… ‘A left-hand turn’ of that enormous ocean liner… but he doesn’t know where the bridge is let alone know how to steer something of that size. He wants us to see what he truly sees, the romantic view of a captain in a picture like Washington crossing the Deleware. Washington had to go through a great deal of bloody action leading up to that moment. And the war was not over for a long time after.
No, I disagree that we can change things over night by sheer will. It would be like a first grader who wants to be president and can’t understand why he can’t be- if not today, then surely tomorrow. What has to be understood is that there is a great importance in just beginning that journey.
I have taken the time to listen to the candidates and commentaries across the spectrum. I like Bernie’s ideas, however I find in too few cases that he has any idea on how to achieve them. He will have too little time later to do so. It is true that a number of his indictments towards Hillary make me feel that she is the lesser trustworthy candidate. That said, I feel that she would not have leanings towards anything the Republicans want to push for and that just relieving that pressure of negative Right-Wing intent is a major step in the right-Left (correct) direction. I am also beginning to think that if we had a President Sanders who did less than stellar as the Chief Executive it would be used to turn thing in a far more negative direction in the 2020 election. It is important to deal with the things in front of us first, however, we need to keep that old American Eagle Eye on where we need our country to trend towards in the future as a whole.
A note to our non US citizen friends around the world. It is true we in the USA have a crazy and unwieldy political system, but at time like this ‘we the people’ are at least having discussions… and arguments… about those thing we have even the smallest amount of interest and control. Where as the political situation gets me dispirited our peer discussions give me hope.
New York on April 19 looms as perhaps THE crucial test for both Dems and Republicans.
For Bernie, it may really be the last best chance to change the current narrative.
And on the GOP side, it's must-win time for Trump. A loss in NY and he's probably done. I have a hard time believing the GOP would actually nominate a hard-core radical like Cruz, but that is looking like it might actually happen, even though he's, in my opinion, the second coming of Joe McCarthy.
Art, I know that the amount of money spent on presidential campaigns, and other campaigns as well, must seem shocking to those of you in Europe. Candidates for president for both major parties have been foregoing public funding since, I believe, the 2004 election. Doing so allows them to raise and spend as much money as they can, and since then, presidential campaigns have been topping $1 billion. It's mostly money wasted on the insider industry of campaign consultants and paid staff, and a ton of it also helps the troubled media in the form of ad spending :)
There used to be some constraints, but a series of Supreme Court decisions have basically neutered campaign spending laws. That's another reason that the current S.C. vacancy is so important. In particular, I hope the Citizens United decision is overturned, hopefully sooner rather than later. I think it may be one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. It is most important that we have openness on who donates to campaigns. The Supreme Court has allowed anonymous donations for unlimited amounts to superpacs. Knowing who donors are and how much they are donating is vital, and really even more important than limiting donations, though I wouldn't mind seeing that happen, to.
Unlike European countries, we have a two-party system. That's the way our political system is structured. If by chance, some other party rose up (as could happen if the Republican Party were to split), then one of those would eventually fade away. Our system is essentially winner-take-all, which doesn't allow for a strong third party to develop. We don't have a proportionate parliamentary system like most of the rest of the world. That type of system allows for the development of multiple parties.
Let’s say that it is decided to not have unequal and private money involved in elections. Who starts the ball rolling? Who is strong enough of a candidate to impress the electorate by keeping to a set budget from the public coffers and set timeframe for their campaign. Also consider that it is free speech for others ‘not affiliated with candidates’ to have their personal advertisements stating their points of view whether it is based upon truth or lies. Proof that something is a lie has little value when the election is over.
No, the answer is not a: ‘wouldn’t it be good if,’ or ‘it should, could, or must be’ wish. We are still dealing with a country of unequal-equal citizens with different points of view based upon their cognitive thoughts or those who they choose to think for them, like the ‘Fox channel.’ The latter here is exactly the same as citizens saying that the government responsibility is someone else’s job. How do we get people to think? How do we get people to vote?
We seem to be trapped between the way we truly believe things should be and the way things actually are. There should be no money whatsoever in politics. Money is not a freedom or an expression of free speech. It is the precise opposite- an abstract commodity. Our current administrative model is akin to one dollar/one vote as opposed to one citizen/one vote. The former is the definition of a plutocracy, not democracy. We have allowed our representatives of our choosing to chip away at the latter in favor of the former by not being involved and by saying it is someone else’s job. Then we complain when things are not done the way we want by those we hired. My first thought is that there should be a ‘poll tax.’ If you don’t vote you get taxed to support all those who make up for the failing of duty by the non-voters. No one says you have to vote for anyone, but as you must file your taxes- you must file a ballot.
We can raid the Bastille or the depose the dictator, however without an orderly plan- as we have witnessed- the outcome would most likely be more of the same just with new players who have no idea what they are doing other than wanting to keep their newly gained power.
Consider; not everyone is in opposition to the things being the way they are. Humans are basically self-serving. It is the knowledge of this from which societies were developed. Some were to strengthen that self-serving nature. Our USA ‘great experiment’ fundamentally was set up to achieve better things as an enlightened society without the strict dictates of socialism or communism (which may not have even been in practice during the our country’s founding in the 1700s). Ours was to be a free to choose from an ‘equal field of potential.’ My second thought is to state clearly that all people are not ‘created’ equal. This removes the limitations of any creator from the selection of many. Our equality stems from our universal un-equality, therefore, we must all be accepted as peers under the law. It is not our natural limitless variation in genetic and sub-societal makeup from where we find commonality. We are peers just by the fact that we are citizens with a Bill of Rights to stabilize momentary swings in legal contextual definition of the guide lines.
I follow the movement which espouses that the answer is to remove all (as in 100%) money acceptable outside of taxes in the running of or for government including all governmental agencies. In a similar hypothesis: the length of time it took to gain fat is the length of time it will take to reduce it. We need to slenderize our plutocratic inclination. That will take many votes over many years to cure the malady itself. Then the body politic will need to stabilize itself by detoxifying the poisons ingested that were sold to the politicians as sociological medicines.
So, can it be done now? My third thought: I am beginning to lean towards, ‘no’ not if it is expected to happen all at once. Here I am less secure in my conjecture. Historically progress happens in one of two ways. First, the slow and steady diet. Second, the liposuction with tummy-tuck. They both make things look better, at least in silhouette, however, each has its inherent drawbacks. One is Hilary- the other, Bernie. I know where I want to go… I’m just not sure how I want to get there.
In response to your question, I don’t know. I have zero passion for either candidate, so I’ll probably be kicking it around up to game time. Right now, my needs are so focused on specific outcomes that I’m most concerned with getting a Democrat elected. Foremost on my mind is getting a Supreme Court justice in place. It would be great to get another justice like Kagan in, but I’d settle for a candidate like former justice John Paul Stevens. It’s a rare blue moon that I would think a Republican would be a good nominee! Still, Republicans would not even consider someone like JPS today. Following the Supreme Court appointment, I’m concerned about continued gains in LGBT rights (the recent legislation in both North Carolina and Georgia is chilling), and what feeble progressive gains have been made these last eight years in health care (ok, that’s beyond feeble), and the environment I’ d like to see a continuation and fine tuning of those policies. Clinton or Sanders I feel would fill that agenda, and what other gains they can make would be icing on the cake. For me, it’s a win-win, but at the end of the day, I think Clinton is going to win.
@art4U—“I wonder what “far left socialist” means in the USA”. There are 320 million people here in the US, and I’m guessing that you’d get 320 million different responses if you posed it as a question. Maybe, on a good day, 1% of the population here would be able to tell you the difference between communism and socialism.
@bearlyy—I keep wondering why we’re still debating this too. Like the Zealots holding off the Romans, you know the inevitable outcome. Numbers, numbers, and numbers! The posted delegate count chart here from March 26 is pretty telling. At this point, Clinton needs only a third of the delegates that are out there to wrap it up. You can throw hypotheticals out there until you’re blue in the face, and they won’t change the outcome. Arizona redo? It’s not going to happen. I can’t speak for NY, but Clinton won California in ’08, and as competitive as Sanders will make it here, she’ll win, and Trump will win the Republican primary here. I’ll bet you a beer on that (we have excellent beer here in SD). But, I want to go out on a limb and say she’ll win NY, too. I’m not being flip or trying to be contrary, but I read this cool article in the ’New Republic’ by Eric Sasson that focuses on the Clinton voter. Again, telling, as Sasson starts with the numbers pointing out that “[s]he has amassed over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders; over 1.1 million more votes than Trump.” Despite the supposed negativity that one ought to feel about Clinton (e.g., she’s a liar, cheat, flip-flopper, etc…) Clinton voters are out there and they like her. They might not be furiously posting pictures of her, or sharing like-minded videos, on social media, or shouting “USA” like at a Trump show, but they are doing the most important thing: showing up and voting. That’s all you need. Going back to the NY vote, it’s her home state, she has a formidable operation, and people genuinely like her. OK, Bernie overwhelmingly wins Brooklyn, but he’s gotta win the state. Doubtful.
Debate aside, Sanders staying in the race is keeping things interesting. I enjoy his populace talk (if only to watch those right-wingers squirm), his continued talk about Wall Street reform, and social inequality. His persistent talk on these themes, though not necessarily making the nightly news, has been making Clinton speak out about them and move from a comfy center pivot strategy. The best line I’ve heard to date about Bernie’s influence on the Clinton campaign is by Alex Castellanos, Republican strategist, who said, “man suit or pant suit, Bernie is going to the White House”. Perfect! I like this SNL video. :)
You heard it coined here first: #berneaved
@fenwaydav! I had that same uncle!
Link to delegate chart source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/20 … src=nl_fix
Link to Eric Sasson article: https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter
It's not ideal, but elections cost TONS of money. It has to come from somewhere. And after all corporations are people, too :) Not everyone can make a religious connection with voters like Obama or Bernie. The left only backs the occasional presidential candidate.
As for Bernie, I'll call him the probable nominee when he is. New York on April 19 is the next big test. Hillary is the current front-runner and has a clear lead. If that changes, so be it. But even if Bernie doesn't win the nomination, if he influences Hillary and moves the party in his direction, that's still a victory. And I'd say he is doing that.
Revolutions don't happen overnight.
If disparaging Hillary makes you feel better about your candidate, that's your right, I guess.
But she isn't just a *little* better than Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. She's a HELLUVA lot better. If you think that way, then obviously, we don't care about the same issues.
I swear, many on the left are so blinded by their hatred of Hillary Clinton that they would rather see President Trump. (Interesting you selected a clip from Susan Sarandon, a delusional lefty who in fact has actually said she would RATHER have Trump.) The left has been drinking Republican Kool-Aid.
What, pray tell, do you on the left hope to accomplish by tearing down the party's probable nominee? By all means, work for Bernie, be enthusiastic, hopeful, etc. But don't bury your head in the sand. Fact: It is highly unlikely that Bernie is going to be the Democratic nominee. Except for Michigan, he has yet to win a large diverse state. At this point, he is actually further behind Clinton than she was behind Obama in 2008. Barring some kind of bombshell or lightning strike, he is NOT going to win the nomination. Hell, he's not even a DEMOCRAT.
Hillary, however, has been on the front lines of Democratic Party politics for over 20 years and has actually been working to accomplish things that improve people's lives. Bernie has done nothing but talk in Congress. And why do you think he's substantially more electable? EVERY GOP ad, if he's the nominee, will be screaming SOCIALIST, and to most Americans, Socialist equals Communist.
Interesting that you chose health care and gay rights as two areas where Clinton would trail Obama, because they are two fields on which her track record is BETTER than Obama. History lesson: Did we all forget that Hillary was one of the original reformers on health care, heading a task force during her husband's administration in 1993? "Obamacare" was in no small part lifted from Hillary's own health plan back in 2008.
And on gay rights, man, you just don't want to give Hillary any credit at all despite her long record of support for us. Yes, she opposed marriage equality, but so did virtually EVERY major U.S. politician, including Obama, when the issue first broke in the 1990s. She was a little slower than some Democrats to publicly change her position, but she came around. And what exactly has Obama done as president on gay rights, other than the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell? In seven years as president, Obama has yet to make a single major gay appointment. I guarantee you Hillary would do better than that. The ONLY thing Obama has achieved on gay rights that Hillary did not support or would not have also done was help change attitudes in the African-American community, and Obama is uniquely qualified on that front because of the color of his skin.
I don't mind the left touting Bernie as some kind of savior. (Do you REALLY think his major proposals have ANY chance of becoming law?) But there is no need to tear down Hillary Clinton in the process. Politics doesn't have to be a blood sport. You don't have to hate your opponent, and in this case, doing so may actually be destructive. Let the Republicans destroy their nominee. The Democrats don't need to do likewise.
Here's Hillary's speech to the U.N. again for those of you who need a reminder of her gay rights bonafides. There's a reason she has been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqynW5EbIQ
If Trump wins, maybe the Dems can nominate Kim Kardashian in 2020! Kanye for first lady!
If we don't elect this honest man, it will be another generation of both parties kowtowing to the wealthy and the military/industrial complex.
No matter who we elect, the Congress might remain in Greedy Obstructionist Party (GOP) hands, so neither Hillary nor Bernie will be entirely successful in changing things, but the national die will have been cast for the future when this can happen. Meanwhile, the GOP is falling apart with candidates comparing penises and wives as if that is how we decide who will lead us. Bat-shit-crazy is the only term fitting for that kind of mental failure.