Interesting.
Obama is reportedly telling democratic donors that it's time to start rallying around Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html
Originally posted by Ushgarak👆
What on earth does that have to do with picking nominees?EVERY western nation follows that creed. It's not some sort of special US thing.
Democratic elections are about choosing amongst those nominated, not choosing who gets nominated in the first place. That's a private matter for parties.
Overly-strong public consultation in the choosing of nominees tends to cock that up. Damn right I wouldn't trust the public members of my party to choose sensibly if I was a Republican. The rank and file are clearly gravitating to an unelectable extreme. Half the point of a party mechanism is to prevent that kind of idiocy happening- it does not benefit the nation or the people.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Interesting.Obama is reportedly telling democratic donors that it's time to start rallying around Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html
Makes sense, Sanders is unfortunately just about done and uniting earlier rather than later for the upcoming primary only helps. We all only to look at the division on the Republican side right now to see how harmful that can be to a party.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
. Damn right I wouldn't trust the public members of my party to choose sensibly if I was a Republican. The rank and file are clearly gravitating to an unelectable extreme.
That is my point. If the majority of the GOP constituency share Trump's extremist views, then logically does this not mean that those extremist views are the official stance of the GOP itself? What is a political party other than the representation of the ideology of its constituents?
Clearly Reagan/Bush era republicanism is no longer popular , as shown by the losses/dropping out of Jeb and Marco. Note that Trump's closest competition is Cruz, who is equally, if not far more, extremist in his views. Extremism is clearly the populist stance of the GOP constituency, and as the representatives of their constituency, the establishment rightfully should be forced to support that extremism on behalf of the national constituency, no matter how damaging it will be in an election.
The establishment should be forced to support this extremism primarily because it is the extremism that the establishment itself surreptitiously proselytized into its constituency ever since the Reagan era and amplified in voters to mercilessly slander Obama in hopes to obstruct his progressive policies. So they made this bed for themselves.
The voters have clearly spoken, and to rob them the chance of choosing their representative is the ultimate oligarchial corruption of a liberal democratic republic, which is what the U.S. is at its core.
Again, you are conflating an election with choosing a nominee. 'The voters have clearly spoken' is not really a sentence that needs to apply to nominations, which are the private business of the party (which in the US has decided to let the public in on to an unhelpful degree).
It is absolutely not, by any means, the job of a party to pander to a completely out of touch voting base. On the contrary, it is the job of the party to lead the way of what they want to do and for people to leave it if they don't think it represents them. It is nothing like the relationship between a constituent and his/her elected representative.
And yes, the Republicans have been courting this type of voter for a while and now it's bitten them in the ass, which is funny in its way, but that doesn't change the fact that the party is entirely entitled to say "No- this person does not speak for us. You may like him, but he is not what we are."
And it IS a disaster for the Republicans if Trump get the nomination- and more broadly, a crisis for democracy in general. He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the most powerful office on the planet and any mechanism that allows him to do so is faulty.
Originally posted by Robtard
Makes sense, Sanders is unfortunately just about done and uniting earlier rather than later for the upcoming primary only helps. We all only to look at the division on the Republican side right now to see how harmful that can be to a party.
Luckily pretty much every democrat I've talked to said that they'll vote for her if(when) she gets the nomination, even if they support Bernie in the primaries. At this point the GOP has the primary roster from Hell, and no matter how much disdain there is for Hillary, a GOP win from Trump or Cruz is perceived by most democrats as essentially the apocalypse.
See, unlike the GOP, democrats don't proselytize their constituency with fearmongering and willful ignorance, so as such, democrats can elect their representative without causing a major cataclysm in identifying the party's core ideology.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, you are conflating an election with choosing a nominee. 'The voters have clearly spoken' is not really a sentence that needs to apply to [b]nominations, which are the private business of the party[/B]
If that were the case there would be no need for public vote-based primaries. The entire purpose of a democratic republic is that the people elect representatives to institute their social and economic views in government. This is why Rubio lost the primary, because he did not institute the views his constituency voted for him to represent. In a democracy, the public constituency holds the ultimate power, thus giving power to the people (of course the flaw of democracy is that the people can be ignorant, but again, in the case of the GOP, they've proselytized the ignorance that is now rebelling against them). Anything less is just an oligarchy.
Originally posted by Lestov16
See, unlike the GOP, democrats don't proselytize their constituency with fearmongering and willful ignorance, so as such, democrats can elect their representative without causing a major cataclysm in identifying the party's core ideology.
BLM liberal democrats conduct riots and acts of terrorism and political terrorism and internet terrorism, much worse then any undefined "GOP" character that you are generally referring to.
Lindsey Graham goes from wanting to kill Ted Cruz to now endorsing him.😂😂😂
THIS IS AWESOME
Watch his transformation on video.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-endorsement/index.html
Originally posted by Lestov16
Luckily pretty much every democrat I've talked to said that they'll vote for her if(when) she gets the nomination, even if they support Bernie in the primaries. At this point the GOP has the primary roster from Hell, and no matter how much disdain there is for Hillary, a GOP win from Trump or Cruz is perceived by most democrats as essentially the apocalypse.See, unlike the GOP, democrats don't proselytize their constituency with fearmongering and willful ignorance, so as such, democrats can elect their representative without causing a major cataclysm in identifying the party's core ideology.
Yeah, it's anecdotal, but I've not really heard Sanders supporters say they'd vote for the Republican runner or not vote at all if Clinton takes it.
I have concerning Trump though.
Yeah. Trump has pretty much hijacked the GOP and turned it into a half-liberal/half-conservative/full-fascist political party that just has the GOP name. Again, this is what years of Obama-bashing get, a constituency so ignorant that it has now redefined the core ideology of the party at it's own detriment.
Obama privately telling doners to dump Sanders and support Clinton
How dare he do this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html
Holy shit, She actually said she wants to put coal miners out of work.
Interesting
According to this article, white males statistically have a more biased disdain of Hillary than other groups
Originally posted by Lestov16
InterestingAccording to this article, white males statistically have a more biased disdain of Hillary than other groups