Bernie Sanders and Rigged Elections: Sometimes You Just Lose
Toni: Bernie Sanders has benefited from the caucus system; its a major reason he has been competitive. If Hillary Clinton had dominated caucuses instead of primaries, I suspect that he would have complained that caucuses were flawed that they were less democratic than primaries and less accessible to the working class.
And if Sanders had dominated with Democrats and lost among independents, instead of the other way around, I suspect we wouldnt be hearing calls from him to open more primaries to independents.
Thats just standard politics any other candidate would have behaved the same way. And Sanders is far less of a finger-in-the-wind politician than many. But it goes against this general idea that his side is trying to convey: that hes pure, that hes above politics.
Nate: I think theres some truth to that. Along those same lines, I remember back in 2008 that Barack Obamas support in red states was supposed to be a sign of his strength. Now Sanders supporters dismiss Clintons wins in red states as if theyre somehow illegitimate.
only applies to the General, of coarse
It's lazy to broad brush and attribute to "supporters" the comments or actions of a few.
You just keep dreaming.
Given a fair playing field Bernie wins. The DNC was against him, the media was against him, the establishment was against him.
Not fair, so stop pretending it was.
So very many are saying our democracy is dead.
I guess that makes some happy? Does it make you happy?
I, for one, think elections should be fair. See, I am in favor of democracy, and it fucking pisses me off when elections are not fair. You?
You are saying that a party favoring a long time very influential and even famous member over one who just joined to run for president is not fair. As far as the media goes they follow what makes news, and it took a while for Sanders to make enough of a rumble to be on there frequently. Then you say establishment, which goes right back to the earlier answer for the DNC. Those are your reasons for why it was not fair. Would a election between you and Sanders be fair? Of course not.
You said it wasn't fair, then you state why it's not fair and you refuse to even answer the question about if you favor fair elections.
With friends like you who needs neo-cons?
Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)
In a perfect world I do, but what are you going to do? Somehow give mass amnesia to all the democrats in the country so they forget a Democratic icon?
Im pretty bad at typing and spelling. Why doesn't the spell check work in the reply title by the way? Pretty sure I am a liberal by the way.
is why democracy is dead is the reason it is dying, because unless it is democracy in a vacuum then to them it is not fair and they opt out of it, hence so many independents and libertarians who have no clue how our politics actually work.
I don't see any evidence you do.
Unfair elections, big money politics, a bought media.... none are in any way shape or form conducive to democracy. Yet here you are making excuses for such.
President Obama beat Mitt Romney by 5 million votes in the popular vote category, and that included all of the Democrats, Republicans, weirdo Libertarians, lazy Greens &tc.
Secretary Clinton is winning by 3 million votes in the Democratic Primary! And we haven't finished voting yet!
Democracy is working fine; your guy just got smoked.
As for your argument upthread that it wasn't a fair playing field, I agree. Secretary Clinton had to beat back Republicans, single-issue NRA voters, Libertarians, anarcho-Libertarians, lazy Greens and tens of millions of SuperPAC dollars. She faced ratfucking from the Republicans, while Senator Sanders got the ratfluffing treatment.
Your guy had every break in the book, including caucuses, open primaries, tons of money (including money spent indirectly on his behalf by Republican SuperPACs), and not getting deeply vetted until his New York Daily News interview.
Two unknown people who have never done anything of consequence or joined any political party and that have no money or backing should run for the democratic nomination for president. Neither of them can have any standing with the DNC or the media. I think we all want fair elections, yours just seems a tad bit unrealistic and when you use that to somehow de-legitimatize the candidate running against the one you prefer because they are loosing it comes across as very naive, self serving and petty.
Change to post 19 that you answered to, it wasn't actually your first response to me.
Not in a country where the establishment is owned and controlled by the Koch Brothers, wall street and other big money. Not in a country where media conglomerates owned by wealthy conservatives build up candidates that they support and tear down those they don't. There is no fair and balanced in reporting any more. Hell, they blacked Bernie out for a full six months.
And not in a party where the democratic party establishment (congress and DNC) who are all owned by the oligarchs and corporations and MIC, decide who the president will be, instead of letting the people decide.
But in spite of all that, Bernie is doing a bang-up job of shaking up a system he wasn't even supposed to be able to make a dent in.
We aren't through yet. Even if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, we are not done. We've had it and we're not going to take it any more.
In a fair election, all candidates would get equal non-partisan air time (publicly paid) so people could learn who they are. Too many people are not on-line all the time seeing all the info out here. They are glued to their TV's. And yet you think it's OK that the media can cover one candidate over the others in the race?
Bernie started getting loud and excited crowds early on and he was completely ignored. And Hillary started with a huge lead in delegates, which were continuously given out by the news as her winning the race from the very beginning. Lots of people just go with the brand name, especially if they are winning. Superdelegates should never be used early in the race by the media to sway the public vote. Only at the convention.
Sorry, but your idea of a system that may not be fair but is just the way it is...that's not the kind of "way" I want. Too many people are not happy with the way this country is going and we are going to change it. You can kick and scream and say it's not fair that a revolution isn't respecting the establishment...boo hoo. We are starting now by helping down ticket progressives to win and we will keep doing that until we can change congress enough to actually see some possibilities for change. And we are going to find another leader like Bernie and we are coming back and we are going to get the money out of politics and are going to have people in congress who are responsible to the voter, not the lobbyist.
We are going to make this country great again (gag...why did Trump have to use that)...because we are going to bring back FDR democrats.
Like I said. We are fed up and we're not going to take it any more. We may lose the first battle, but we'll be in it for the long run.
sounds great,,,,, as to how much of a difference that would make I think we might disagree. Personally I love C-SPAN, but America loves crap like the apprentice and finding Bigfoot way more. I think your equal air time would not make a whit of difference at all. The media just gives the public what they want, I used to rail against the media till I learned that, I used to rail against politics till I learned that. We really have the media and government we want, and we are collectively very stupid. There is a reason why voter turnout was so low in 2014, and a reason why independents were so low then. They like finding bigfoot more than actually participating in elections.
despite what people might have wanted. Now it's all based on ratings, so ti completely depends on "what the audience will watch". But it's a two-edged sword. The worse journalism and programming got, the more people got used to it and now they just expect it.
We need to fix this. Again, big money and conglomerates have allowed this to happen.
We can't change this until we get someone in the white house with the courage to tackle big money.
But how to do it? People don't want the news, they want entertainment. How many people do you know that watch CSPAN? I think I am the only one I know. What are we going to do, enforce everybody to watch a daily segment of balanced and nonpartisan news?
Maybe we need to have publicly funded non-partisan, non-entertainment news, and all the other crap can be turned back into reality tv shows for all I care. Break up the conglomerates and let them become opinion or talk shows instead, but not called news and not connected to the news stations.
I haven't watched tv for at least 15 years because I couldn't hack the crap. I think there are a lot of people like me who found the internet gives us what we were missing (along with a lot of crap, but we can sort it out).
If news had standards that had to be met to qualify for public funding and all other phony news programs had to be labeled talk shows instead, maybe people would actually break away from that to watch some real news once in a while.
Of course the real news programs would have to be in 10 minute spurts at best because of short attention spans now.
Hey I've got it...in between regular programming, you get a three minute burst of real news several times, just like advertising. Maybe some subliminal messages in there too.
Obviously I don't have the answers, but I don't believe it's impossible to find some. Someone just needs to be willing to try. But like I said, it depends on breaking up the big money and conglomerates. And the FCC needs to establish some stiff standards for journalism and actual fair and balanced news.
and don't have the answers to fix it "Obviously I don't have the answers,". Me neither. I am open to things that will fix this, but I am afraid that we would have to first change human nature to fix this, until we can, I will operate in reality and do the best I can. When things like CSPAN are as popular as fox or nbc then we will have made some headway, I just have no idea how to get to that point without brainwashing most of our country or regulating the news to the point that we have ended the freedom of the press and I am not a supporter of those at all.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. Here is proof. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/bernie-sanders-announces-presidential-run/
Because it's actually worse than that, when all the major TV networks are pushing Hillary and tearing down Bernie, it's worse than having no coverage at all. And he has been getting coverage this year, but in 2015, he got next to nothing. And even this year, the coverage of his huge rallies has not been covered by major networks much, if at all. It is in local newspapers, but not on TV. You can find lots of info on the internet, but mostly young people use the internet as a news source. Most older people are still glued to TV and cable.
Had to laugh at that. There is actually way more negative news coverage of Clinton than Sanders so its a bit hard to know if there has been a positive or negative effect on either. I do agree that there should be more coverage of Sanders though.
In a private message, I was told to not post here. Wonder by who? So I did. Because I dont respond to childish threats.
But just to show what you have done here it is. I'll take the hide to show what you said, worth it.
Come back when you get wise
I am done helping look so dumb in public.
Believe me, I am doing you a favor. But if this message doesn't sink in, post it in the thread. I dare you.
How is that not telling me to not post here?
Why should I post it again? I didn't think you would, but you did and it may be meta but only OP's get meta'd out.
Sorry someone has been a influential and prominent person in the party she has been a member of for a long time, sorry the news tends to follow what they deem important and people that regularly make news actually news. That is anything you can get away with. What a joke.
It's hard to work so hard and lose, but that happens to everyone who becomes involves in politics at some time or another. The repubs won the first three presidential elections after I was old enough to vote. It was almost enough to make me lose interest in political issues altogether!
the nomination. He lost by far too much."
From your link:
I think that this will be Sanders' true legacy in the Democratic party.
Neoliberals and New Democrats hate progressive politics.
If all this is rage, shrieking, spitting and spewing was actually doing something for your candidate and his chances at winning, I'd understand it. But it ain't which makes all of this INCREDIBLY e ntertaining.
If you think I would stop discussing because we near the end of the primary season, that is quite silly. I don't turn off my sensibilities of progressive politics once we have a nominee.
Bye. Forever Ignore for you.
I love it when folks who do nothing but chase after folks and instigate one idiotic, pointless argument after another announce that they are putting OTHER folks on ignore.
Bye honey! Don't let my dancing and joyous tone confuse you. I'm really devastated that someone who does nothing but insult everyone and argue about fuck all from sun up to sun down is putting me on ignore. Just... devastated.
... believes that that election was stolen. Half a million votes is a lot of votes, but that was a national election, which included all of the Democrats, all of the independents and all of the weirdo Libertarians, and all of the lazy Greens, and all of the asshole Republicans.
Secretary Clinton is winning in a private party primary by 3 million votes, and we still haven't finished voting! "Rigged" is funny.
"any other candidate would have behaved the same way". Actually, I am not recalling any of our Democrats behaving this way. The tantrums seem to be unique to Sanders.
and producing results that do not reflect the will of the people.
We saw that in states that held both a primary and a caucus when they went on to produce very different results.
Yet, have the supporters and especially Clinton been whining about the unfairness? Our election process is what it is and for decades candidates have gone thru the process, without false accusations and without tantrums. Bringing someone outside the party and allow them the courtesy of running under our resources, and he abuses the privilege.
To demand to change it while in the process instead of advocating change at a later date is the height of irresponsible.