Bernie beating Hillary badly in New Hampshire 60-33

[TX-Beau]

I agree. What America needs is for the GOP to nominate a tin-foil hat candidate like Trump or a bible-thumping wingnut like Michele Bachman AND LOSE - big time. Then the GOP can shake off the Jesusy fringe and move back to the center. And then normal Americans will finally be able to choose candidates from two parties again.

In a parliamentary system that might work, but in ours either candidate no matter how crazy is structurally going to get probably 40% of the electoral votes free and clear. It's dangerous to play that game when you can win without getting the most votes.

The reason we're in this position in the first place is that there is no incentive for politicians to move significantly to the center since each side knows that they will end up winning or losing because of electoral turnout, or structural manipulation, like gerrymandering - not on debates over policy.

The goal is to inflame more of your base than the other guy, or stop the other guy's base from voting. It would be better if we had a universal requirement that electoral votes (electors actually elect the President - the popular vote is technically just a poll. Electors are nominated by each party) be distributed proportionally according to the popular vote - in which case you could have a point, but we don't.

 

[Kulindahr]

nice unfounded hatched job on President Reagan - I don't notice any sightings as there's ZERO concrete evidence of what you're saying

yet you still blurt it out as if

isn't there a law against this kind of thing ?

It's not unfounded; Reagan insiders have been speaking up recently. IIRC it's been discussed in this forum. It's even come up on some conservative sites -- I saw one where in a discussion of what mental conditions should mean someone shouldn't be allowed guns and Alzheimer's was mentioned, and someone pointed out that from recent revelations that could have impacted Reagan in his second term.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree. What America needs is for the GOP to nominate a tin-foil hat candidate like Trump or a bible-thumping wingnut like Michele Bachman AND LOSE - big time. Then the GOP can shake off the Jesusy fringe and move back to the center. And then normal Americans will finally be able to choose candidates from two parties again.

Normal Americans won't be able to choose candidates for any significant office again until we somehow eliminate the very select "election" where something less than a fifth of a million people do the "voting" that no candidate can do without: getting the approval of the people who control the big money.

This video is as relevant as ever: We the People and the Republic We Must Reclaim

 

[frankfrank]

It would be better if we had a universal requirement that electoral votes (electors actually elect the President - the popular vote is technically just a poll. Electors are nominated by each party) be distributed proportionally according to the popular vote - in which case you could have a point, but we don't.

THAT has problems, too. Without us getting a parliamentary system, I don't see any way around problems with our winner-take-all system.

Most likely in 1992, and in 1968, with Perot and Wallace respectively, the election would have probably ended up in the House of Representatives, because of failure of anybody to get 170 electoral votes. That could be VERY bad. If Bloomberg decides to run, the certainty of this scenario is ABSOLUTE this year, if electoral voting was done in that new way.

I've long thought we need to get rid of the Electoral College entirely...but, at the same time, I've argued that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do so, because the "small" states will never relinquish their somewhat disproportionate power in the process. (For example, California has about 50 times the population of Wyoming or Vermont, but less than 20 times as much influence in the Electoral College.)

 

[Kulindahr]

I've long thought we need to get rid of the Electoral College entirely...but, at the same time, I've argued that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do so, because the "small" states will never relinquish their somewhat disproportionate power in the process. (For example, California has about 50 times the population of Wyoming or Vermont, but less than 20 times as much influence in the Electoral College.)

The small states are SUPPOSED to have extra power, to prevent the exact thing that democracy-worshippers would establish: as aristocracy of large states, in which small states would become exactly what Oregon's population-small counties have become: lands run not for their residents, but for the pleasure of the people in the big cities, and to hell with whether that's good for the people who live there.

A popular-vote presidency would just be another step toward serfdom for those Jefferson and others regarded as the stalwart heart of the country: those who live on the land. It would be the final betrayal of the man Democrats claim as their own.

 

[T-Rexx]

I agree. What America needs is for the GOP to nominate a tin-foil hat candidate like Trump or a bible-thumping wingnut like Michele Bachman AND LOSE - big time. Then the GOP can shake off the Jesusy fringe and move back to the center. And then normal Americans will finally be able to choose candidates from two parties again.

I agree it would be a good thing to see one of the GOP crazies get nominated and lose big time, but I'm not convinced it would help to cure the disease within that political party.

What is important to understand is that the GOP is NOT an American "conservative" party. Its economic policy is the use of the government to transfer money from the middle class to wealthy private individuals, NOT balanced budgets, small government, or low taxes for average people. Over the past 50 years, EVERY Republican president has presided over ballooning deficits and massive increases in the size of government. Almost every Democratic president has reduced the deficit and has increased the size of government at a much slower pace than Republican presidents. The American conservative party is the Democratic Party.

The GOP is a primarily a religious party which appeals to fundamentalist Christians who believe that the world would be a much better place if we enforced a Bronze Age understanding of social mores on society. In that regard, it is very analogous to the Taliban or the Islamic religious parties of the middle east, which seek to impose (or maintain) the same kinds of religious practice on the population.

Religious parties do not respond to political defeat with reformation of their ideals. Almost by definition, their ideals are sacrosanct and unchangeable because they come from God. They respond to defeat with anger and a determination to enforce their will by undemocratic means, for the "good" of the country. And that is what we have seen the GOP doing in America, by preventing the heathen from voting, by gerrymandering evil people out of the political process, by enacting "religious freedom" laws to allow the persecution of heretics, and by blocking access of women to contraception and abortion.

Republicans don't respond to democratic defeat by reformation. They respond to it with less democracy.

 

[jbrown329]

^^ "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
-- U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times, March 23, 2005)

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree it would be a good thing to see one of the GOP crazies get nominated and lose big time, but I'm not convinced it would help to cure the disease within that political party.

What is important to understand is that the GOP is NOT an American "conservative" party. Its economic policy is the use of the government to transfer money from the middle class to wealthy private individuals, NOT balanced budgets, small government, or low taxes for average people. Over the past 50 years, EVERY Republican president has presided over ballooning deficits and massive increases in the size of government. Almost every Democratic president has reduced the deficit and has increased the size of government at a much slower pace than Republican presidents. The American conservative party is the Democratic Party.

The GOP is a primarily a religious party which appeals to fundamentalist Christians who believe that the world would be a much better place if we enforced a Bronze Age understanding of social mores on society. In that regard, it is very analogous to the Taliban or the Islamic religious parties of the middle east, which seek to impose (or maintain) the same kinds of religious practice on the population.

Religious parties do not respond to political defeat with reformation of their ideals. Almost by definition, their ideals are sacrosanct and unchangeable because they come from God. They respond to defeat with anger and a determination to enforce their will by undemocratic means, for the "good" of the country. And that is what we have seen the GOP doing in America, by preventing the heathen from voting, by gerrymandering evil people out of the political process, by enacting "religious freedom" laws to allow the persecution of heretics, and by blocking access of women to contraception and abortion.

Republicans don't respond to democratic defeat by reformation. They respond to it with less democracy.

They are, after all, the heirs not of people who sought religious freedom, but the freedom to impose their own religion on their society.

 

[evanrick]

I was stupidly hoping the gop would evolve into a coherent opposition to keep gop supporters at bay. Trexx explained well why we should not hope for that.

 

[TX-Beau]

I was stupidly hoping the gop would evolve into a coherent opposition to keep gop supporters at bay. Trexx explained well why we should not hope for that.

I knew we weren't going to get "coherence" from the right, I just didn't realize the Republican Party was already dead. They are basically just squabbling over the franchise now.

 

[evanrick]

I knew we weren't going to get "coherence" from the right, I just didn't realize the Republican Party was already dead. They are basically just squabbling over the franchise now.

the only thing i admire about republicans is their ability to stack the deck in their favor, anyone would do that, past that they are spitting in the faces of millions of real people.

 

[hotatlboi]

I agree it would be a good thing to see one of the GOP crazies get nominated and lose big time, but I'm not convinced it would help to cure the disease within that political party.

What is important to understand is that the GOP is NOT an American "conservative" party. Its economic policy is the use of the government to transfer money from the middle class to wealthy private individuals, NOT balanced budgets, small government, or low taxes for average people. Over the past 50 years, EVERY Republican president has presided over ballooning deficits and massive increases in the size of government. Almost every Democratic president has reduced the deficit and has increased the size of government at a much slower pace than Republican presidents. The American conservative party is the Democratic Party.

The GOP is a primarily a religious party which appeals to fundamentalist Christians who believe that the world would be a much better place if we enforced a Bronze Age understanding of social mores on society. In that regard, it is very analogous to the Taliban or the Islamic religious parties of the middle east, which seek to impose (or maintain) the same kinds of religious practice on the population.

Religious parties do not respond to political defeat with reformation of their ideals. Almost by definition, their ideals are sacrosanct and unchangeable because they come from God. They respond to defeat with anger and a determination to enforce their will by undemocratic means, for the "good" of the country. And that is what we have seen the GOP doing in America, by preventing the heathen from voting, by gerrymandering evil people out of the political process, by enacting "religious freedom" laws to allow the persecution of heretics, and by blocking access of women to contraception and abortion.

Republicans don't respond to democratic defeat by reformation. They respond to it with less democracy.

Many Republicans dislike the concept of democracy in general. I think this is party an uneducated subconscious reaction that associates "democracy" with "Democrat", but one thing you will notice in any argument with Republicans is that many of them will refuse to admit that the US is a democracy at all. They don't fear the loss of democracy because they claim we never had it in the first place. So they are perfectly fine with a further shift toward oligarchy.

 

[kallipolis]

That Donald Trump is dominating the media's air time, and this forum spends much of its time discussing Trump, it should come as no surprise that the Republican Party is being reinvigorated by a maverick whose rhetoric is encouraging Republican Party supporters to take a fresh interest in the national debate.

The Republican Party is far from dead, and it would be insanity to underestimate growing grass roots support for Trump.

 

[hotatlboi]

That Donald Trump is dominating the media's air time, and this forum spends much of its time discussing Trump, it should come as no surprise that the Republican Party is being reinvigorated by a maverick whose rhetoric is encouraging Republican Party supporters to take a fresh interest in the national debate.

The Republican Party is far from dead, and it would be insanity to underestimate growing grass roots support for Trump.

There are many closed minded bigoted people in the US. It's unfortunate but true. However, the same thing that is winning Trump the xenophobic idiots in the GOP is turning off more moderate people that he would need if he ever wanted to be elected president. I didn't think Sanders actually had enough support to win the general previously, but he absolutely crushes Trump. Even some moderate GOP establishment people have said they would not be able to support Trump. People may have underestimated him in the R primary but I still think he has very little chance to win the general. All he has are uneducated low income whites who think their country is being taken over because it's become more multicultural and making a good living requires more intelligence than it used to. There are a lot of those people here, but they do not constitute a majority.

 

[kallipolis]

I am merely reminding the obsessive personalities who post here, not to write off the Republican Party simply because Bernie's agenda is winning favour with the idealist voter. History teaches us that the maverick can mesmerise voters, sufficiently to shift their allegiance. Never underestimate a gifted orator, with Trump a good example.

 

[jbrown329]

We saw what John McCain's 'maverick' got him. As for Bernie, he's my first choice. If he doesn't make it, I will vote for Hillary. I shudder to think what will happen if any repuke gets elected (or as Bush's first term, selected).

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Lol. Trump a "gifted orator." Oh boy. Yelling louder than other people and appealing to the Neanderthal crowd is anything but gifted.

 

[Kabluey]

Lol. Trump a "gifted orator." Oh boy. Yelling louder than other people and appealing to the Neanderthal crowd is anything but gifted.

He's been speaking English?

 

[Alnitak]

It will be a 1988 election all over again. Americans do not want a radical leftist for president. They want a New Democrat like Clinton and everyone will know that the first advisor to her will be the first gentleman in the White House. There is a reason the establishment picks candidates, so that loud extreme voices do not front unelectable ones.

 

[jbrown329]

Bernie isn't radical. If politicians hadn't been moving constantly to the right (after JFK), Bernie would be mainstream.