While I have been generally in support of Clinton as the Democratic nominee, for a variety of mostly pragmatic reasons, if the Democratic establishment thinks her nomination means they can blow off the sizable chunk of pro-Sanders / anti-establishment voters who kept Clinton's efforts from being a casual saunter to party coronation, then they are cruisin' for a bruisin' this fall.
And while I firmly believe that every Sanders supporter should be pulling the voting lever for Clinton in November, despite any nose-pinching, if only to keep Trump out of the White House, the Dems can't afford to lose any of those votes to further neglect or alienation.
I don't believe Sanders' populist movement could actually have won (yet) in November — but they can surely cause Clinton to lose if the party establishment sufficiently disrespects them. And given that these are the folk in the age bracket / demographic surge that the Dems are counting on to eventually tip the tide against the GOP, pooh-poohing their concerns and impact would be a horrifyingly stupid mistake — especially given the stakes this fall.
Here's hoping that the Democratic establishment isn't as doltish as the article suspects they are.
[h/t +Stan Pedzick]
Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie
Instead of a reality check for the party, it’ll be smugness redoubled
Taibbi has been a strong Bernie supporter for ages. He's still coming to terms with his loss. Give him time.
Sen. Sanders' statements yesterday after the meeting with Obama gave me hope.
+Colm Buckley I have so much respect for Bernie and his supporters.. I know they are smart savvy people and we will unite against the dark and evil man.. trump
As a Bernie supporter I will not be voting for Hillary this November, she thinks she can steal the nomination and then be entitled to my vote. Nope I will never vote for that lying, vote pandering, policy shifting person. If Trump wins then so be it. I will know that I never voted for the lesser of two evils, but for the best candiate we had.
Poll on The Young Turks, has 82% saying they will never vote for Hillary so obviously I am not alone in my sentiment. Yes I realize that is not in anyway a scientific poll.
An interesting read. Thanks.
+David Lettinga I would encourage you to reēxamine your assumptions. The white heat of a primary campaign magnifies the differences between candidates, and in particular tends to demonize opponents well beyond the bounds of reality.
If you think that Trump is a better option for the country than Clinton, you're simply not a progressive. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Saying "so be it" to a Trump presidency displays an extremely callous disregard for the immense, intense suffering such an event would bring, not to mention the raging trash fire it would make of the world.
+Colm Buckley Me, too. On the other hand, given the firestorm of heat that Warren took in some quarters for endorsing Clinton yesterday, I have to wonder if even Sanders can throw his support against Trump without being accused of being a sell-out by some.
These kinds of reactions are what come from lying about the process being rigged, and insinuating that your opponent is “stealing” delegates/votes. It’s sad to watch people, usually people who are middle class to well off, decide that they should spite the rest of the country because “their guy” didn’t win. That just smacks of a privileged attitude, and one that says, “damn the rest of the country, I’ll be fine.”
I’ve taught my 7 year old to behave better than that, and I only hope with some time that people realize that Hillary isn’t a lying, corrupt, devil like she’s been made out to be.
As a #StillSanders and #NeverHillary backer, a gun to my head wouldn't cause me to pull a lever for Hillary nor Donald. And I'm just as livid about Warren's endorsement and the media's constant repetition of "Hillary clinches nomination" – No! She does not have enough delegates to the be the nominee. She likely will after the convention, but that's a month away. Until that time, she's "most likely" to be the nominee.
Hillary. Clinton. Is. Not. Yet. The. Nominee.
To state otherwise further disenfranchises Bernie supporters. Even a Clinton/Warren ticket would not earn my vote. Hell, a Clinton/Sanders ticket still wouldn't. The elite have robbed our democracy, and if it takes a Drumpf presidency for the DNC to learn its lesson (which I doubt, if Bush was any indication), then, in +David Lettinga's words: "so be it".
It is not the people's job to rally around the candidate the DNC chooses; it is the job of the DNC to choose the candidate the people rally around.
Until they learn that very important lesson, they will not earn this Independent's vote.
+Derik DaSilva Oh, for heaven's sake. Stop pinning your hopes on a superdelegate revolt. To use your own emphasis:
It. Is. Not. Going. To Happen.
Sec. Clinton won more votes, more states, and more delegates than Sen. Sanders. She is the choice of the party, by perfectly democratic means. Her skill in building up a (remarkable, by Democratic Party standards) coalition of support among existing party leadership and serving officials is also an extremely positive attribute for those hoping for good governance.
I'm perfectly sympathetic to the politics and policies of Sen. Sanders, but at some point you have to face the reality that he lost the primary election. It wasn't stolen and it wasn't rigged, he simply lost. This happens in politics – most people running for President don't become President. The sooner you come to terms with this, the better off the country and the world will be.
Vastly more people voted for Clinton than for Sanders. Seriously, this is a matter of objective fact. She is "the candidate the people rallied around.*
"So be it" to a Trump presidency is the voice of privilege, prioritizing your own wounded feelings over the rights and needs of the literally hundreds of millions of people President Trump would screw over.
+Derik DaSilva While it is certainly within the realm of imaginable events that Clinton could not get the nomination, or that Sanders would, there seems very little reasonable way that could happen without a catastrophic event (let's say, a stroke) incapacitating or otherwise making Clinton unavailable.
And the same is potentially true all the way to the actual election. It's conceivable that she could be caught in October in her basement replaying the video of how she personally killed Vince Foster — but that seems kind of unlikely as well.
That's not "disenfranchising" Sanders supporters, any more than Cruz supporters were "disenfranchised" by Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee, or I'm being deprived of food because the restaurant closes in 15 minutes and I'm an hour away; sure, I could flag a passing helicopter and get there in time, but if someone said I wasn't going to make it, I wouldn't feel that my hunger was being dismissed as unimportant.
The only vaguely plausible way Clinton could lose it at this point would be if the vast majority of super-delegates were to shift from Clinton to Sanders. But there's no basis for thinking that's going to happen. Really, no. And even if that happens, it's not like it's magically enfranchising Sanders supporters; it's simply a bizarre quirk of a non-democratic party rule system.
'It is not the people's job to rally around the candidate the DNC chooses; it is the job of the DNC to choose the candidate the people rally around.'
Based on the delegate count, even excluding the super-delegates, that appears to be Clinton, not Sanders. By a substantial (not a "if only Iowa had flipped the other way") margin. Looking just at primary elections, the difference between them is close to 4 million voters.
That doesn't mean the 13-odd million voters who cast a primary vote for Sanders mean nothing, any more than the 8 million voters who cast a primary vote for Cruz mean nothing. As the article above suggests, both parties need to do something to bring those people over to their side if they want a win, and if they don't (as the article predicts for the Dems), they will likely lose.
As to letting Trump win in order to send a message to the DNC, that's a fabulous tactic if you're not one of the population groups that will be impacted most adversely by a Trump presidency (including, in which case, GOP control of both houses of Congress): the poor, the working poor, racial minorities, immigrants, religious minorities, women. And even if you're not, given the scope of that combination's likely impact on environmental laws, on national and global economics, on militarism and diplomacy, everyone is likely to be affected except the most elite. And the effects will last decades, if not generations, even if the DNC somehow "learns its lesson."
Which is not to say that a Clinton presidency will be skittles and beer and free baby kittens, but I strongly doubt it will be notably worse than the current incumbent, and am as certain as I can be it will be far better than the alternative.
+Colm Buckley I will gladly face that reality when it becomes reality: after the convention. Perpetuating a non-fact as fact just works towards further disenfranchising Bernie supporters, as I said.
And to definitively state that it was neither stolen nor rigged ignores a severe lack of investigation in numerous primary battles where extremely suspicious circumstances occurred: voter purging, exit polls outside the allowed margin of error, Bernie delegates mysteriously losing their delegate status due to "paperwork errors", caucus leaders ignoring verbal-vote controversy and declaring their own desires, conflict of interest with all parties involved in the voter database "controversy". The list continues!
The DNC-media teamup of "we investigated ourselves and absolved ourselves of any wrongdoing" further fuels my rage.
And if the people truly "rallied around Clinton", why did the DNC to decide to not only cut debates from 26 to 6 (adding a few more after the fact due to increasing pressure); but they scheduled the very first debate between the candidates AFTER the deadline for Democratic registration in New York?
Bernie's New York rally was massive, but the majority of those attending could not vote for Bernie because they did not know about him prior to the deadline. The DNC and the media worked in tandem to make that reality. You can blame the non-Democrats for not knowing enough about the process, or being "too little too late" on their political enthusiasm; but the reality is that the DNC crafted the system that way for that very reason.
I will not bow down to a coronation. I will vote, but giving me an ultimatum that "not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump" is spitting in the face of our democracy.
My vote is my voice, and my voice says neither Clinton nor Trump have earned my vote for President, nor do I perceive any reality in which they will. Call me privileged, call me naive, I will not throw away my convictions due to insults.
Were I arguing with a party-loyal Republican, my argument would state: "if my lack of voting for Trump risks a Clinton presidency, so be it".
+Dave Hill Your argument perpetuates the "politics as usual" narrative that the DNC and media have been shoving down our throat since Bernie announced his bid for Presidency. Bernie is an Independent, and the only reason he caucused with the Democrats is because he was forced to under that same narrative. But this revolution is real. Millenials and Independents alike are livid with the "lesser of two evils" mentality of our political system and many (myself included) refuse to succumb to it any longer.
And as a member of the working poor, I know full well that my life will get significantly worse under a Trump presidency. And I will be livid. And I will be political active in combating what he might implement. We can spend all day speculating what might happen under one president or another, but I am a member of the revolution. I firmly believe our current political system needs a massive overhaul. As does our media system. I do not believe that quietly conforming to the status quo will achieve either of those ends.
+Derik DaSilva _'I will vote, but giving me an ultimatum that "not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump" is spitting in the face of our democracy.'_
Actually, that pretty much states what democracy is in a two-party system, which is what we have. (We can debate over the merits of such a system separately, but for purposes of pretty much anyone ever elected to president, it's been a two-party system). There will be two immediately viable choices in November.
If someone is, on the issues, closer aligned to the positions of Clinton — which I sense you are (as a Sanders supporter) despite the areas where you disagree with her or dislike her as a person — then not voting for that more closely aligned candidate is effectively not supporting those areas of alignment. And it makes it one vote more likely that a significantly less-aligned candidate will succeed.
Voting for a third party candidate is an arguable alternative, but primarily as either message-sending or incrementally building up a third party for the long haul. In my opinion, that's courting major pain and damage to a lot of people in the hope that someone will come along at a later date to patch at least some of it up.
+Dave Hill You mention alignment of issues, and so I ask you this: if one candidate aligns closer to 50% of my values, and the other aligns closer to the other 50%, how do I bypass such an impasse? Because I'm equally terrified of Trump or Clinton having their finger on the nuke. I'm equally terrified at foreign relations, whether by Trump alienating our allies or Clinton perpetuating Middle Eastern wars. And I'm not thoroughly convinced that Trump's rhetoric on women's issues and minorities aren't simply pandering to the lowest common denominator of conservative voters. As for economics, both candidates are equally likely to serve the elite before the people. Keep in mind that Clinton didn't support gay marriage until 2013. LGBT rights is a pretty basic platform when it comes to progressive issues, and she's only been "for" gay marriage for THREE YEARS!!!!!!
In summary, the fear of Trump is the fear of the unknown while the fear of Clinton is the fear of the known. I will not vote for Hillary as a vote against Trump, nor will I vote for Trump as a vote against Hillary. I will see how things end up, but neither Trump nor Hillary will see my name in their list of "People Who Voted For Me". To vote for either of them is to vote against what our entire nation stands for, in my opinion. I consider it my civic duty to resist both candidates and what they represent. And I will do so.
+Derik DaSilva Fair enough. I think you are putting principle above the immediate needs of (and threat to) yourself and many others, but that's a judgment that each person should consciously make for themselves.
The only thing I'll add is to question whether a "revolution" against the "current political system," giving it a "massive overhaul," is more likely to succeed (and succeed in a positive fashion) under a Trump/GOP regime. I've heard a lot of folk say that we need to let it all burn so that something better can be built, and that's more likely to come from the horrors of a Trump victory — but the lessons of history don't indicate that's either a pleasant process nor likely to actually result in something stable and positive.
That doesn't mean accept the status quo or stop protesting. It means not letting current lividity blind one into making a grand gesture that doesn't actually advance the cause.
I guess we'll see what happens. My bottom line argument is I have more faith in the human species' ability to adapt than I do in any political person or system. We'll persevere; or we won't. #entropy
+Derik DaSilva Obama didn't come out in favor of gay marriage until only a year before that, but there's little doubt that he's done a tremendous amount of positive work in that area, and more.
I think not taking Trump at face value — when that face value is so ideologically repulsive — is a mistake. When he says he's okay with countries developing nukes so that the US doesn't have to pay for their defense, or when he says he'll work on libel laws to make sure that the press doesn't treat him "unfairly," or when he talks about blocking Muslims from entry into the US, I'm not going to assume he's just pandering to the fetid base of the GOP. And, if nothing else, rhetoric like that (and so much else) only emboldens that base, breaking out a brand new Overton Window, to the broader detriment of everyone else.
+Colm Buckley I despise both Hillary and Trump neither will ever get my vote. I refuse to be on the wrong side of history, my vote will never go to Hillary.
Yes yes, I'm very impressed by your principles. Enjoy your self-righteousness; I hope it brings you satisfaction.
+Colm Buckley you enjoy voting for the corporate shill who doesn't care about you and lies to you face. Who pays off the media to give you false reports and uses fear mongering to win votes. Yeah sounds like an amazing and inspiring president can't wait for her to take away more of our fundamental and essential rights.
I'm neither a citizen nor a resident of the USA, so I won't be voting. But I know what's right. And I also know that Secretary Clinton isn't the demon you've whipped up.
+Colm Buckley so you aren't a citizen of the USA but you are telling me who I should vote for?
This would be like me telling you to vote for the most corrupt candidate in your country.
Let me just say if you knew the truth about Clinton you wouldn't vote for her either. You can't look at articles from the MSM because she has already made deals with them. We had reports of her winning states before the states even voted. Trust me this election is a shit show.
I didn't tell you who you should vote for. I warned you against demonizing a politician who, I can clearly see, is nothing like the caricature your painting.
The politics of the USA, more than any other country, are hugely influential across the entire world. It's entirely reasonable for me to have strong opinions about this election, and to defend them.
I am certain that I'm at least as well-informed about the election as you are.
The entirety of your last paragraph is a series of conspiracy theories borne of confirmation bias. Reading outside your bubble might be fruitful.
Do you want to discuss US intervention in the political affairs of other countries? The ‘Leave EU’ campaign was shouting the same thing when Obama said the UK should stay in the EU. The internet is full of Americans telling the other 95% how to live.
I was hoping Sanders would win, so as the insane plunge right your country is taking would be slowed. But did you really think a man who joined the Party just for the nomination didn’t start behind? Hillary won most of the ordinary vote. You complain about the voting system. Yes, it stinks, it is a stupid, byzantine system, that was designed for a limited number of states in the 19th Century. But do you know what will happen? The same that always happens, every 4 years. Next January you will forget all about it until the next nomination process.
I’m assuming that Obama is a terrible corporate shill, because he continues to kill people by drone, hasn’t reformed Wall Street and waited until the last possible moment to support LGBT marriage? Warren is obviously a Wall Street Whore for supporting Hillary. When Bernie makes his support explicit rather than just implicit what the hell are you going to do?
I Bing’ed Clinton Policies
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
4th or 5th hit (Bill gets top billing). How many of those the Republicans going to be campaigning on? Draw the Venn diagram – Trump-Clinton-Sanders. I’m betting the Clinton Sanders intersection is quite big and the Trump-Dem’s intersection is quite small.
Is she too close to Wall Street – Probably. What is the US doing to make it so that political success doesn’t rely on schmoozing Wall Street? Sweet Fanny Adams.
Politicians go where the votes are. The answer is not to move the politicians, it is to move the electorate. Look at the ACA – look at the numbers who still think the old way was better. Yes, the politicians have a duty to make the case, to argue for their policies, to try and lead, but come election time they have to get the most votes, then spend the next term leading the way to where their vision is.
Obama won 2012 by 5 million votes. Less than half the number that voted for Sanders. So come next January, when President Trump is attacking the ACA, pissing off your allies, pissing off Putin and the Chinese, saying something stupid enough to make the Saudis cash in all those bonds, ripping up environmental protection, enacting a millionaire-helping flat-tax, attacking the rights of anyone who isn’t a white man, just think.
+Colm Buckley conspiracy theories? Do you work for Clinton? Holy shit you obviously know nothing about Clinton if you think she is not a corrupt POS. She will sell the USA to the highest bidder. She already has and will continue to do so. She made millions upon millions of dollars giving speaches behind closed doors to corporations and refuses to release what was said at said speeches. She knowning and willing broke federal laws and then lied about it. She has been suspressing voters since day one of this election, unless you want to tell me hundreds of thousands of people just happen to lose their voter registration or forgot they changed their political party. She has installed people who donated to her foundation into the security intellegence board https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/741314507822272513
Trust me I was neutral until she started playing her games, now I'm fully against her and no one will change that. I know what kind of person she is and she will never get my vote. She is a war monger and if you think Obama and Bush were bad just wait until you see Hillary she and her war buddies will ensure we have continued war around the world so they can make more money. She is the type of person who will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. She isn't out to serve the people she is after power and money plain and simple.
These are not conspiracies as you put it, these are cold hard facts.
Now you also seem to think she "won" the primary, that is easy to do when you don't allow roughly 40% of the US population to vote because they are not in the Democratic party. Now I don't know how much you know about the US constitution, but we have 5 specific amendments which specifically state no person shall be hindered or abridged in voting. Now last time I checked that means you cannot deny people their right to vote based on their political party.
Lastly I'll say I'm not even in the top of people who hate Hillary, I would say I'm fairly moderate when it comes to being against Hillary and her cronies.
Yes, conspiracy theories. You've come up with a few more in your most recent comment. I'm not interested in debating someone who is no longer interested in reality.
(Everyone has the right to vote in every election? Seriously? Why can't you vote in… say the third district of Iowa? Because that's not your constituency. I'm sure you can figure out the rest.)
Well done in misinterpreting the US constitution. The Democratic party and Republican party, like all political parties in democracies are private organisations. Try rocking up at Apple meeting and demanding a vote because of the constitution. Frankly I’m not surprised at those states that exclude non-party members, but rather I don’t understand why a political party would let just any one vote, no matter their allegiance.
These are Hillary’s stated aims –
Addiction and substance use
Through improved treatment, prevention, and training, we can end this quiet epidemic once and for all.
________________________________________
Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.
________________________________________
Campus sexual assault
It’s not enough to condemn campus sexual assault. We need to stop campus sexual assault.
________________________________________
Climate change
Making America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
________________________________________
Criminal justice reform
Our criminal justice system is out of balance.
________________________________________
Disability rights
We must continue to expand opportunities for all Americans.
Early childhood education
Every child deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential.
Fixing America’s infrastructure
Strong infrastructure is critical to a strong economy.
________________________________________
Gun violence prevention
It is past time we act on gun violence.
________________________________________
Health care
Affordable health care is a basic human right.
________________________________________
HIV and AIDS
We have reached a critical moment in our fight against HIV and AIDS.
________________________________________
Immigration reform
America needs comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship.
________________________________________
K–12 education
A world-class education for every child in every community.
________________________________________
Labor and workers’ rights
When unions are strong, America is strong.
________________________________________
LGBT rights and equality
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans deserve to live their lives free from discrimination.
________________________________________
Making college affordable and taking on student debt
The New College Compact: Costs won’t be a barrier, debt won’t hold you back.
________________________________________
Manufacturing
Manufacturing is critical to the U.S. economy.
________________________________________
National security
With policies that keep us strong and safe, America can lead the world in the 21st century.
________________________________________
Paid family leave
It’s time to guarantee paid family and medical leave in America.
________________________________________
Protecting animals and wildlife
The way our society treats animals is a reflection of our humanity.
________________________________________
Racial justice
America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.
________________________________________
Raising incomes and fighting inequality
The defining economic challenge of our time is raising incomes for hard-working Americans.
________________________________________
Rural communities
America’s rural communities are at the heart of what makes this country great.
________________________________________
Seeking a cure for Alzheimer’s disease
We can prevent, effectively treat, and make an Alzheimer’s cure possible by 2025.
________________________________________
Small business
Hillary Clinton will be a small business president.
________________________________________
Social Security and Medicare
We must preserve, protect, and strengthen these lifelines.
________________________________________
Veterans, the armed forces, and their families
America must fully commit to supporting veterans.
________________________________________
Voting rights
We should be making it easier to vote, not harder.
________________________________________
Wall Street reform
Wall Street must work for Main Street.
________________________________________
Women’s rights
Women’s issues are family issues, economic issues—and crucial to our future competitiveness.
________________________________________
Workforce skills and job training
Every American should be able to learn new skills in order to advance in their careers.
Please indicate which of those Bernie supports, and which Trump supports.
+Colm Buckley Again these are not conspiracies as you like to call them, these are all things she has done. Here is two minutes worth of Google searches, Email http://observer.com/2016/05/game-over-emailgate-just-crippled-the-clinton-express/ Paid speeches, these were done in under 2 years http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-paid-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees Voter suppression http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-supporters-mock-voters/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/dnc-lawsuit-arizona/
https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/ http://ktar.com/story/1029529/allegations-of-voter-fraud-follow-hillary-clinton-campaign-across-nation/
Tell me again how these are just conspiracies?
Yes everyone has a right to vote in a presidental primary election because it is deemed a federal election therefore the federal election laws are applied. I'm not talking about voting somewhere I don't live, maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say. In the US in certain states you have to register which political party you are in months in advance of the actually election, now if you are not part of the right party then you cannot vote for president in the primary. This is illegal and against the US constitution, however Hillary and the DNC have pushed this and changed or erased people's political party affiliation prior to their state primary. Again if you want proof I have read hundreds of stories of people's party affliation being changed without their consent or knowledge.
Show me how what I am saying are conspiracies or that I am out of my mind, please link me something that says all of what I am saying is false. I will gladly read it and take it into consideration, however I highly doubt you will be able to find such proof because it does not exist
By definition, people who have succumbed to believing in a conspiracy theory don't realize that it is one.
+David Lettinga Presidential nominating primaries are not federal elections. They are not governed by the Constitution beyond equal protection under the law and statutes arising from that (I don't think for example, that a primary could be limited to people of one race). The process for selecting party candidates for president is not defined in the US Constitution; in fact, the Constitution is (quite intentionally) devoid of any discussion of parties or how they are organized.
State party nominations are the purview of the the actual parties themselves, as private entities selecting candidates to run for a federal office. Indeed, whether a party itself holds a primary, or a caucus, or has a the state legislature vote, or just picks their party delegates in a smoky room is completely up to the state parties under certain parameters from the state (e.g., if a primary election is held, state and local election laws and funding apply; some states have told their parties that they will not pay for primary elections, which is why some states have gone the caucus route).
And historically, party nomination processes have not been open to members of other parties. There are exceptions, and there are certainly arguments pro and con, but there is nothing particularly weird or outrageous about the idea that a state Democratic (or Republican or Libertarian or Peace & Freedom or American Socialist) party organization would only let registered members of their own party vote to select their party candidates for the actual federal election.
+Colm Buckley I showed you proof from multiple different sources you haven't showed me anything so…
+Dave Hill The president is which side of government again? Oh yeah federal therefore it is a federal election unless you are going to tell me the president is not a federal office.
+David Lettinga Um, the election of the president is a federal election.
The nomination of a party's candidate to qualify into that federal election is the business of that party, except to the extent that state and local law may apply (to carry out a popular primary). The actual nomination is done by the national party convention, but, again, that's an organizational detail by the individual parties, and not even necessary; through 1820, the Democrat-Republicans chose their candidate by a caucus of their members of Congress.
Again, I understand what you are saying and even the logic behind it. But party nominating activities are not considered federal elections and never have been by the courts, both because they are not defined in the US Constitution and because primary election (of delegates to a state convention, thence to a national convention) is (rightly) considered the private jurisdiction of the individual parties in question.
+David Lettinga You showed me assertions which are very different from proof.
Seriously, this is all the product of extreme confirmation bias. Your mental model of Secretary Clinton has diverged significantly from reality, basically due to your existing in an information bubble. There's probably nothing I can do to convince you of this except let nature take its course, but it's true nonetheless.
If you'd like me to post links arguing for this perspective, I'm happy to do so.
+Colm Buckley again I ask you to show me something proving me wrong I welcome it actually. I'll be waiting. Also you said once someone thinks it's a conspiracy they don't even see that it is one. You think it's all a conspiracy…
+Dave Hill so you're argument is that political party have more power than the people and the federal constitution. That's all I need to know. Constitution states my right to vote shall never be infringed or abridged by the federal government nor the states. They are by definition infringing people's rights by claiming they need to be a certain political party to vote.
+David Lettinga Your right to vote in the general election is guaranteed by law and the constitution. The party primary elections are not subject to this guarantee – they are private affairs which are run by the parties as they see fit. This is a complicated matter, because certain states have adopted laws regarding the operation of primaries. There is, however, no national right to participate in arbitrary primary elections.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election (the section about the United States) for more information about this.
I hope (but don't expect) that this is sufficient to disabuse you of the notion that closed primaries are rigged for Hillary. Apart from everything else, the system long-predates her candidacy.
+Colm Buckley so still nothing stating I'm wrong about her "conspiracies" thanks. Have a nice day.
I have stated that the constitution says the federal government nor state cannot deny or abridge my right to vote. They are specifically doing that in the primary. Show me something that has different wording in the constitution and I will say you are right. Here I'll do it for you actually. Section 1 24th Amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
Go ahead prove me wrong I beg you.
"By reason of failure to pay any poll tax our other tax." This makes a specific form of disenfranchisement illegal (unenrolling someone for not paying a tax). It says nothing about how a state party runs its primary election. Honestly, you're just wrong here; I can't make it any plainer than the Wikipedia article.
+David Lettinga What +Colm Buckley said.
This isn't a matter of "the political party having more power than the people and the federal constitution." The operations of the political parties, insofar as they select delegates to go to a national convention to decide on a candidate, are not subject to federal election laws, and are only subject to state and local election laws insofar as those selections are during a state-operated election.
Or, looked at another way, state primary nomination contests are not subject to federal election laws because they are not electing people to federal office, but are instead selecting for a party their candidates for federal office (or, more properly, delegates for a state nominating convention). The US Constitution has nothing to say about how political parties operate, or how candidates to federal offices are to be nominated..
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907 is a reasonably dispassionate analysis of the email scandal. Key points: her setup was functionally identical to her predecessors', the rules were changed after her tenure, and nobody has demonstrated any criminal intent.
I think the BBC is generally considered a bit more impartial than the various sites you linked. Please let me know if you'd prefer a different news agency.
Colm, Dave- I’d give up. You are going to need NASA to find this guy. He is under the impression that picking a nominee for a state post makes that election a state election (state as in country).
+Colm Buckley Thank you for the BBC. It states what I have read before that she may or may not have broke several federal laws. So she may or may not have done one of the many "conspiracies" I have listed.
+Dave Hill
Now on to voting. You discredit the 24th amendment since it is based on poll tax, fair enough lets look at the other things the government cannot deny you voting for.
15th Amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Servitude meaning slavery
19th Amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any on account of sex."
The 24th amendment brings to light that the primaries for president are a federal election, but we will ignore that since it mentions to poll tax. Fair enough.
26th Amendment "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age."
I will also call on light to the 14th amendment which states "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So the government cannot abridge my right to vote for my sex, race or age. Nor can any state make and enforce any law which would deprive me of my right to vote. Which means they cannot restrict anyone's right to vote because of their political party because that would fall under sex, race or age. Now if you are going to try to tell me that states can deny people based on their political party, you are retarded and there is no point in debating any further since you believe that political party trumps sex, race and age.
You may want to try to pull the it's a primary election again, guess what nothing in the amendments I have quoted from say anything about general vs primary they simple state that me and along with everyone else cannot be denied or abridged no matter their race sex or age above 18.
The implication of what you're saying is that you should be allowed to vote in every election carried out by every organization, public or private. You can walk into the local sewing circle meeting tomorrow and demand to participate in the election of their chair, even though you've never been a member. This is simply not the case and the same is true of party primary elections. They are not elections to public office, they are not guaranteed to be open to everyone, and they are organized however the local party wants them to be organized.
Seriously, see the Wikipedia article I linked earlier – it explains the diversity of primary elections in the USA. There have been constitutional challenges to certain primary arrangements which blur the distinction between private organizations and the State (eg: California's blanket primary was struck down precisely because it interfered with the right of the California Democratic Party to organize its own primary).
Once again: you are simply wrong here; it's hard to be any clearer.
+Colm Buckley What I am saying is no state can get in the way of me voting for a public official. Nor can any political party get in the way of me voting for a public official.
Not sure why people never understand this and always try to leap to something that has nothing to do with the topic, what does a private organization have to do with a public office? Oh that's right nothing. I already know you are going to say, but political organizations are private and yes they are, but the politicians we elect are not and therefore are public officials and fall under federal laws and the US constitution. The DNC chair person is a private election because she is the head of the private political party. The president is a public servant who works for the people not the Democratic party.
Maybe you are seeing these documents as separate entities, but they are not they all mold together to form one document. That document is the over arching governing paper for the whole US every law and government falls under and must follow the constitution. There is no way around it; states cannot disregard the constitution because they think it doesn't apply to them. No state can create laws that go against what is stated in the constitution. That is exact what states have done; which is create laws which make it more difficult to vote or make it impossible to vote.
You keep saying yes but the political party "hosts" the election. That is false when I register to vote I register with the state. When I go to vote the polling location is sponsored by the state, paid for by the state, and controlled completely by the state. The political party has zero control at my actually polling location.
Dude. You're wrong. There's no requirement for a political party to hold an open primary. Get over it.
One more time: the primary election is not electing a public official. It's electing a candidate for public office. (In most cases, it's not even doing that, it's electing delegates to the national convention of a political party, and binding those delegates to vote for a particular candidate.)
Yes, your right to cast a vote for President is protected by the Constitution. Your right to appoint delegates to the Democratic National Convention (and Republican National Convention, come to think of it) is not. It's perfectly okay for the parties to restrict that right to their own members.
+Colm Buckley You're right political parties do not have to hold open primaries, there is just one flaw in that statement. Political parties don't hold the fucking elections the states do. No where in the United States do the political party's hold a primary the state holds the primary. The states write the laws on who you can vote for in a primary, some of which are illegal. No where in the US will you walk into vote and be greeted by a DNC of GOP official, you will be greeted by a state official, fill out a state election slip and walk out the door. Why can you not comprehend this?
I will say this with 99% certainty and someone is welcome to prove me wrong, but all voting locations are hosted in a publicly controlled building like a school, community center or a courthouse. You do not walk into the DNC or GOP building to cast your vote.
The political party has absolutely zero control over how the election is actually held, the state has full control over the primary election. Going back to what I have previously stated, no state can in anyway hinder my right no vote.
So I'll say it again you are WRONG.
I'm also still waiting on you to disprove my other "conspiracies".
See the court cases listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States and related pages. The constitutionality of closed primaries has been affirmed several times, and one particular case of a state attempting to replace closed primaries with a blanket primary has explicitly been ruled unconstitutional.
It's completely irrelevant that the primary is actually run by the state (that's mostly because both parties run their primaries on the same day). They're still private elections. Now seriously. Let it go.
No, I won't be "disproving" your other conspiracies. You're the one making crazy claims; you're the one who has to provide evidence. Citations from either Republican or Sanders-partisan sites simply don't count.
+Colm Buckley I typed out a response, but seeing as you can't comprehend anything and use Wikipedia as your go to source for information, I can see I am just wasting my time.
I hope the Kool-Aid is good. Have a nice evening.
If you were correct, then the primary elections in Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming are all constitutionally invalid; right? Where is the court case challenging them? Do you seriously expect me to believe that such a flagrant violation of the constitution is going unchallenged? Why isn't Sen. Sanders, for example, bringing this to the Supreme Court?
Closed primaries are neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Your theory about the applicability of the constitution here is simply incorrect.
Wikipedia is simply an aggregator; in this case the clearest precedent (linked from Wikipedia) is the case of California Democratic Party vs. Jones – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/567/case.html – which affirms the right of the party to run its primary however it wants. Read the majority opinion in the judgement for a very thorough discussion of the constitutional issue you raise. Even the dissenting opinion doesn't argue that a party's rights in this matter can be overruled by the state; merely that it's more a state affair than a federal one.
Now seriously. Let. It. Go.
To your other argument that very few Sanders supporters will support Clinton: an actual scientific poll finds the reverse, fortunately. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/10/sanders-supporters-prefer-clinton-to-trump-exclusive-poll
Sorry for missing all the fun, folks. I was off seeing A Comedy of Errors. I will avoid making any droll connection.
I'll just add that +Colm Buckley covered the points as well as I could (and addressed a few "conspiracy theories," too). Rather than beating a dead horse over a few other points raised, I'll leave it at that. Though I'll suggest that using the term "retarded" as an epithet is a good way to invoke the ban hammer.