Zosimus wrote:Because people are brain dead. What's worse, they are too stupid and ignorant to realize that they're stupid and ignorant.
That's not necessarily my position, but it is undeniably the Democrats', and it cost them the election. They forcibly selected the only candidate, living or dead, who could lose to Trump. Thank god; imagine Bernie at the helm!
(BTW, I'm not a student of US political history, so feel free to come up with a list of the goats from previous elections that the Democrats could have stood against Trump and still lost.)
Zander wrote:Ahh yes the Democratic party, the party famous for viciously suppressing voters.
And what do you consider the superdelegate process does? It was explicitly set up to ensure an "acceptable" candidate was fostered on the electorate. Sure, the Democrats are happy to encourage participation by voters who are massively disproportionately likely to vote Democrat, but they want to make sure those people have to vote for the approved guy. As I said, I don't necessarily disagree with this (although it makes for awful press), but it clearly shows an attitude similar to the one Zosimus claims to have.
Regarding the 12 point win by Hillary vs. Bernie, you may be right that she'd have won anyway without the superdelegates (certainly the actual figures show that). However, removing superdelegates from the mix would have changed the narrative which, for the entirety of the primary campaign, was Hillary could not lose to Bernie irrespective of the actual vote because essentially all superdelegates had pledged to her (to say nothing of the behind-the-scenes actions of the Democratic party mandarins). I'd expect that affected voting patterns.
Looks to me like Dukakis would have had a good shot at beating Trump.1 I know that article doesn't actually say that, but if the results were so similar when Trump was up against a historically unpopular Democrat, then it seems to me he'd have pulled it out of the bag. Certainly, Americans didn't dislike him to the extent that they disliked both Trump and Clinton.
ruffdove wrote:The first reason the debate is pointless is because if Trump won the majority of the popular vote and Clinton won in the EC, all the left wing nuts would be nodding their approval at the wisdom of the Founders for having the foresight to have an EC and it would be some right wing nut who started this thread. You can deny this all you want, but nothing anyone says will make me believe I'm wrong about this.
ruffdove wrote:There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Republicans in upstate NYC whose turnout is severely depressed by the fact that however many of them turn out, they get cancelled by NYC.
ruffdove wrote:The first reason the debate is pointless is because if Trump won the majority of the popular vote and Clinton won in the EC, all the left wing nuts would be nodding their approval at the wisdom of the Founders for having the foresight to have an EC and it would be some right wing nut who started this thread. You can deny this all you want, but nothing anyone says will make me believe I'm wrong about this
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests