It appears the system is working

[untermensche]

It was never a fair fight.

It was Bernie against Hillary AND the Democratic party. From day 1.

I am sick of the Bernie haters that gave us Trump by nominating an incredibly flawed candidate.

And what did Bernie contribute to the Democratic Party over the last 30 years? Are you trying to make the absurd claim that his contributions (by shunning them and running as a life long independent) are equal to Hillary's?

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the Republician Party tried to hinder Trump, only turning to support him when the primary votes came overwhelmingly in his favor. Somehow Trump was able to overcome an "unfair" fight.

What Bernie offered was rational opposition to the things the Republicans and Democrats were doing.

What did Hillary do that time except strengthen the oligarchy?

Trump faced opposition from the party, true.

It does not make it right.

Trump being there represents the insanity of Republican primary voters.

Hillary being there represents the stupidity of Democratic voters.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'll also bring up a small factoid here. In many of the European democracies, as well as Austraila, the parties do not hold primaries at all. Back room wheeling and dealing produce a candidate. Yet we don't consider these other democracies less free. Food for thought.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'll also bring up a small factoid here. In many of the European democracies, as well as Austraila, the parties do not hold primaries at all. Back room wheeling and dealing produce a candidate. Yet we don't consider these other democracies less free. Food for thought.

Well, the disappointing thing that is that we are fighting against each other, rather than fighting the opposition. It's sad to see many buying the republican/putin spin that Bernie was hosed! He was screwed. It split the democratic party and allowed Trump to get elected. It's one of the most brilliant political spins in history. Sad to see so many falling for it.

 

[Copernicus]

This thread has been thoroughly derailed, and I am sorry to say that I am one of the culprits. Nevertheless, I think that another thread will pick up on the topic when Comey testifies this week.

Regarding the US two-party system, it is worth remembering that we don't have the same kind of dynamic that exists in parliamentary democracies or those that have more modern methods of electing national leaders, e.g. France. In our system, a plurality can win an election, but the electoral college system skews that even further. Hence, we now have Presidents being elected who are not even elected by pluralities--e.g. GW Bush and Donald Trump. This situation will not change without reform, but Americans seem convinced these days that reform is impossible. Many find it much easier to defend the status quo as basically fixed in cement. There is no serious movement to dump the electoral college, but it has long outlived its usefulness as the centerpiece of a grand compromise between free and slave states. All it does these days is skew elections in a way that undermines democracy.

 

[untermensche]

I'll also bring up a small factoid here. In many of the European democracies, as well as Austraila, the parties do not hold primaries at all. Back room wheeling and dealing produce a candidate. Yet we don't consider these other democracies less free. Food for thought.

Well, the disappointing thing that is that we are fighting against each other, rather than fighting the opposition. It's sad to see many buying the republican/putin spin that Bernie was hosed! He was screwed. It split the democratic party and allowed Trump to get elected. It's one of the most brilliant political spins in history. Sad to see so many falling for it.

What split the party were the stupid people supporting the shrill corporatist Hillary.

They should have supported the candidate that represented the best values.

They took the low road and we have Trump as the prize.

 

[Copernicus]

I'll also bring up a small factoid here. In many of the European democracies, as well as Austraila, the parties do not hold primaries at all. Back room wheeling and dealing produce a candidate. Yet we don't consider these other democracies less free. Food for thought.

Well, the disappointing thing that is that we are fighting against each other, rather than fighting the opposition. It's sad to see many buying the republican/putin spin that Bernie was hosed! He was screwed. It split the democratic party and allowed Trump to get elected. It's one of the most brilliant political spins in history. Sad to see so many falling for it.

That's true, Harry, but that was just taking advantage of human nature. Most Bernie supporters voted for Hillary Clinton, whom Sanders managed to give his lukewarm support to. She did not lose because of the Sanders-supporting "useful idiots" who didn't vote for Clinton or (worse) voted for Trump. All the Republicans and their Russian allies managed to do was shave enough votes from the Democrats to push Trump over the top in swing states. Nobody, including Trump and Putin, really thought that it would work, but they managed to hit the jackpot. Putin effectively decapitated the US government with his military intelligence operation. Now we are watching our federal government and decades of policy advances being taken apart piece by piece. Russia and China are rushing in to fill the void internationally as our influence declines with our allies and our alliances weaken.

 

[Opoponax]

Well, the disappointing thing that is that we are fighting against each other, rather than fighting the opposition. It's sad to see many buying the republican/putin spin that Bernie was hosed! He was screwed. It split the democratic party and allowed Trump to get elected. It's one of the most brilliant political spins in history. Sad to see so many falling for it.

What split the party were the stupid people supporting the shrill corporatist Hillary.

They should have supported the candidate that represented the best values.

They took the low road and we have Trump as the prize.

You seem to be making the assumption that Bernie would've won. You don't know what would've happened.

Bernie refers to himself as a socialist. You don't think that would've brought out conservatives in droves?

You don't how Bernie would've handled the nuclear train wreck that Trump turned the debates into. You don't know how any of it would've turned out.

When the election came, it was Hillary vs. Trump. If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you're almost, but just not quite, as responsible for Trump than those who actually voted for him.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What split the party were the stupid people supporting the shrill corporatist Hillary.

They should have supported the candidate that represented the best values.

They took the low road and we have Trump as the prize.

You seem to be making the assumption that Bernie would've won. You don't know what would've happened.

Bernie refers to himself as a socialist. You don't think that would've brought out conservatives in droves?

You don't how Bernie would've handled the nuclear train wreck that Trump turned the debates into. You don't know how any of it would've turned out.

When the election came, it was Hillary vs. Trump. If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you're almost, but just not quite, as responsible for Trump than those who actually voted for him.

The fact is, we just don't know. I do know one thing though. The prime motivating factor in the GOP voter base is hate, plain and simple. There are two people they hate above all others. Obama and Hillary.

 

[Artemus]

The election is over and there are other threads to argue about what happened. I wanted this one to be about dealing with the result. There are some important testimonies coming up. Let's see what Comey, Coats, McCabe and Rogers have to say. Should be fascinating.

 

[untermensche]

What split the party were the stupid people supporting the shrill corporatist Hillary.

They should have supported the candidate that represented the best values.

They took the low road and we have Trump as the prize.

You seem to be making the assumption that Bernie would've won. You don't know what would've happened.

Bernie refers to himself as a socialist. You don't think that would've brought out conservatives in droves?

You don't how Bernie would've handled the nuclear train wreck that Trump turned the debates into. You don't know how any of it would've turned out.

When the election came, it was Hillary vs. Trump. If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you're almost, but just not quite, as responsible for Trump than those who actually voted for him.

I say if you have ideals you pick the candidate that best represents those ideals.

Sure a bunch of stupid Democrats forced me to vote for Hillary.

That doesn't make me think better of them.

 

[Copernicus]

Sure a bunch of stupid Democrats forced me to vote for Hillary.

That doesn't make me think better of them.

Nor them of you. The point is that democracy is not about getting what you want. It is about the majority getting what it wants, and that certainly didn't happen in the last election. Had there been a runoff election, Hillary Clinton would easily have trumped Trump. However, electoral college. Enough said.

 

[RavenSky]

I've had enough of all the nutty Sanders supporters who can't move on from having legitimately lost the primaries. It was clear on April 26 last year that Sanders could not win the nomination. In spite of that reality, he decided not to concede and join ranks to defeat Trump until he had done some real lasting damage to her chances. She won the nomination for a very simple reason--Sanders did not have broad support among two very large constituencies in the Democratic base, African Americans and Hispanics. He also failed to convince moderates that he had a better chance than Clinton to win the general election...

It was never a fair fight.

It was Bernie against Hillary AND the Democratic party. From day 1.

I am sick of the Bernie haters that gave us Trump by nominating an incredibly flawed candidate.

I am not a "Bernie hater". I voted for him in the primary and still strongly agree with most of his positions. That said, Copernicus is absolutely correct in his assessment of the "Bernie" situation.

We now have the Republican Party in charge of all three branches of government, and we can all collectively share the blame for that.

Bullshit.

I take no responsibility for the vile septic tank stuck-in-reverse that's currently called the President of the United States.

The blame lies with everyone who didn't vote for Hillary or didn't vote at all, and the electoral college system which gave us George W. Bush and now Trump.

But in this part I agree 100% with Opoponax. I voted for HRC in the general - and did so enthusiastically BTW. While my overall political positions are more aligned with Bernie Sanders, I think HRC would have made an excellent president - steady, intelligent, knowledgeable... all the things Trump sure as fuck is not. And frankly, she had better qualifications for the job than any president in my life-time. I am sick and tired of all the false equivalences about "equally bad candidates". Fuck that shit. Not even GWB is as bad as Trump.

 

[RavenSky]

The fact is, we just don't know. I do know one thing though. The prime motivating factor in the GOP voter base is hate, plain and simple. There are two people they hate above all others. Obama and Hillary.

and socialists

 

[untermensche]

Sure a bunch of stupid Democrats forced me to vote for Hillary.

That doesn't make me think better of them.

Nor them of you. The point is that democracy is not about getting what you want. It is about the majority getting what it wants, and that certainly didn't happen in the last election. Had there been a runoff election, Hillary Clinton would easily have trumped Trump. However, electoral college. Enough said.

What ideals did I abandon?

A bunch of stupid Democrats abandoned any chance to honestly say they support the ideals of the left.

When given a choice between a corporatist in support of the oligarchy and somebody opposed to these things they went with the corporatist.

 

[Deepak]

\Had there been a runoff election, Hillary Clinton would easily have trumped Trump.

Is this actually true? The only analysis I saw was of the Stein voters which still would have Clinton losing to Trump. What was the runoff method, and how did they characterize the vote preferences?

 

[Copernicus]

Nor them of you. The point is that democracy is not about getting what you want. It is about the majority getting what it wants, and that certainly didn't happen in the last election. Had there been a runoff election, Hillary Clinton would easily have trumped Trump. However, electoral college. Enough said.

What ideals did I abandon?

A bunch of stupid Democrats abandoned any chance to honestly say they support the ideals of the left.

When given a choice between a corporatist in support of the oligarchy and somebody opposed to these things they went with the corporatist.

Where did I say that you abandoned your ideals? I always liked Sanders' speeches better than Hillary's. He had more charisma, and he had some better policy goals. I supported her because I never had confidence that Bernie could implement any of his policy recommendations or even win the general election, given that he had never been rigorously challenged by the press. Republicans much preferred him to win the nomination over Hillary, because there was a lot of material in his background to exploit--his praise of Castro and the Sandinistas, for example. There was never any need to drag all of that out for an anti-Sanders vilification campaign. Clinton, OTOH, had far more experience and detailed plans for implementing policy goals. So I preferred her on those grounds rather than ideological ones. You preferred Sanders. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people who can't stop bashing Hillary Clinton and praising Bernie Sanders long after both of them have become largely irrelevant in the face of a looming existential threat called Donald Trump.

Had there been a runoff election, Hillary Clinton would easily have trumped Trump.

Is this actually true? The only analysis I saw was of the Stein voters which still would have Clinton losing to Trump. What was the runoff method, and how did they characterize the vote preferences?

Well, there is the fact that Hillary Clinton came closer than Trump to winning 50% of the vote. However, it is really impossible to say, because a truly democratic election of a US president--one that did not involve the electoral college, but just a straight-up popular vote--would probably bring far more people out to the polls. Imagine how it would affect potential voters in solid red and blue states if they felt that their vote would actually be counted at the national level rather than the state level. Everyone's vote would have equal weight, no matter where they lived. What a novel idea.

 

[bilby]

What ideals did I abandon?

A bunch of stupid Democrats abandoned any chance to honestly say they support the ideals of the left.

When given a choice between a corporatist in support of the oligarchy and somebody opposed to these things they went with the corporatist.

Where did I say that you abandoned your ideals? I always liked Sanders' speeches better than Hillary's. He had more charisma, and he had some better policy goals. I supported her because I never had confidence that Bernie could implement any of his policy recommendations or even win the general election, given that he had never been rigorously challenged by the press. Republicans much preferred him to win the nomination over Hillary, because there was a lot of material in his background to exploit--his praise of Castro and the Sandinistas, for example. There was never any need to drag all of that out for an anti-Sanders vilification campaign. Clinton, OTOH, had far more experience and detailed plans for implementing policy goals. So I preferred her on those grounds rather than ideological ones. You preferred Sanders. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people who can't stop bashing Hillary Clinton and praising Bernie Sanders long after both of them have become largely irrelevant in the face of a looming existential threat called Donald Trump.

Had there been a runoff election, Hillary Clinton would easily have trumped Trump.

Is this actually true? The only analysis I saw was of the Stein voters which still would have Clinton losing to Trump. What was the runoff method, and how did they characterize the vote preferences?

Well, there is the fact that Hillary Clinton came closer than Trump to winning 50% of the vote. However, it is really impossible to say, because a truly democratic election of a US president--one that did not involve the electoral college, but just a straight-up popular vote--would probably bring far more people out to the polls. Imagine how it would affect potential voters in solid red and blue states if they felt that their vote would actually be counted at the national level rather than the state level. Everyone's vote would have equal weight, no matter where they lived. What a novel idea.

The only possible excuse for the Electoral College, and the reason it was established in the first place, has been shown to be a total sham.

The idea that the electors could overrule the voters if the voters picked a man who was clearly completely unsuited to the office has never had a more clear and obvious test than after last November's election; and it totally and abjectly failed to perform the one duty it was created to perform - the blocking of an unqualified and incompetent demagogue from taking office.

It's a poor system, whose only mitigating feature turns out to be useless.

 

[barbos]

bilby I read that the reason for electoral college was that Southern states were populated mostly by slaves so slave owners would have no weight in direct elections, so they come up with idea where they normalize on number of people in the state giving blacks 2/3 or something like that of a white man.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

bilby I read that the reason for electoral college was that Southern states were populated mostly by slaves so slave owners would have no weight in direct elections, so they come up with idea where they normalize on number of people in the state giving blacks 2/3 or something like that of a white man.

What? The 2/3's compromise was the basis for determining the number of representatives each state would have available in the House of Representatives. The southern states wanted to count the slaves as people in order to inflate their representative power in the House.

The Electoral College was created as a method to prevent people like Donald Trump being elected President. The Founding Fathers only gave direct electoral powers to the citizens for members of the House of Representatives. Senators were appointed by the state, judges by President and approved by Congress, and the President generally by the Electoral College, typically via a popular vote, but not necessarily.

 

[untermensche]

What ideals did I abandon?

A bunch of stupid Democrats abandoned any chance to honestly say they support the ideals of the left.

When given a choice between a corporatist in support of the oligarchy and somebody opposed to these things they went with the corporatist.

Where did I say that you abandoned your ideals?..

No, Hillary voters in the primaries are the people who abandoned values.

They had the choice between a socialist and a corporatist.

And they chose the corporatist.

They sicken me.