That's fine to believe that way, but it plays into the hands of monied interests. They only have to out-influence a very small percentage of people that way.
Yeah, because they are all so lazy. It makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing that out. One thing about people that support Sanders is that they are all just super duper lazy. Good one!
Yes, this is what surprised me. I am used to seeing it from Republicans the last 20 years. However the level of hero worship and absurdity from Sanders' supports is amazing. Literally any failure is immediately the result of the boogie man.
Yeah! We should also have some sort of way to vote ahead of the official Election Day. Like some kind of early election week or something like that. And maybe we should have a way to like..write in a candidate, too. Yeah, feel the Bern, whoop whoop.
In this age of mass media influencing 10 people or 10,000,000,000 is really not a whole lot different. It is in fact this ability to influence easily that is causing most of the problems. Donald Trump is where he is because he knows how to use this media to his advantage. Like the college kid that only knows Bernie said "free college" and he is going to vote for him.... I would really prefer that someone put a little more thought into it or maybe somebody will run on "free beer" to get the frat boy vote.
You are welcome. I will think carefully before my next post - the last thing I want is to be the only one making pithy generalizations in this forum....
One of my favorite voting stories is from Argentina. They have mandatory voting, the country basically shuts down on election day, everything is closed, you can't buy alcohol the night before, etc.... I was told that a favorite scheme was for a bunch of vans to show up in one of the slums and start handing out left-footed shoes: "If our candidate wins, we'll come back and give you the other one."
Completely wrong, and I would have told you the same thing as a teenager or twenty-something. Turning a polling station into a damn soup kitchen.
Well once upon a time in America politicians and political parties would essentially buy votes with booze. Let's bring that back.
I think a national holiday every two years to encourage voting would be a great idea. Don't see what it has to do with Senator Sanders, however.
Obama Endorses Idea of National Voting Holiday | "…an idea that is also backed by Bernie Sanders, who introduced an election-holiday bill in 2015." slate.com
The below is the first article that has convinced me that Bernie still has a decent chance to win. Bernie Sanders Could Still Win the Democratic Nomination — No, Seriously http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-...tic-nomination----no-seriously_b_9898436.html The article basically makes the argument in a very detailed analysis what happens if Bernie wins 9/10 remaining contests including California, which seems doable and polls continue to show Bernie beating Trump with more safety. Then the super delegates will be faced with by far the most serious decision of whether to exercise their only arguable purpose which is to protect the Party and prevent an unelectable candidate i.e., Hillary. It will lead to unwanted personal scrutiny of the employment of quite a few of them by corporate lobbying firms or outfits like GEO the private prison corporation. The argument does not rely on her indictment which of course is still a possibility and would make their decision easy and near mandatory..
The Sanders' campaign for most of the primaries has been complaining about super delegates and how the process is rigged to disenfranchise voters. Now they look to super delegates as their hope even though he continues to trail by millions of actual votes and hundreds of pledged delegates. So much for principle.
It has been a pattern that has developed with a segment of the Sanders supporters. Facts that do not support their narrow agenda are irrelevant.
So much for your principle. You often say the rules are the rules and you can't change them. So Bernie is supposed to follow the rules, but only if they favor Hillary? It doesn't appear you read the article. Just a generic answer. Hillary is a very flawed status quo candidate, but she is very lucky to be running against perhaps the worst GOP candidate virtually ever and she is polling neck and neck in the battle ground states against Trump.
Really where did I say that the rules should be changed? I've said that the super delegates should vote for the candidate who has the lead and have even pointed out several times that in 2008 they changed from Clinton to Obama because he finished with the lead in pledged delegates. Huh? The article says; [rquoter]In that scenario, Sanders and his supporters believe that the super-delegates — placed in a situation which, to be clear, they have never encountered before — would switch en masse to vote for Sanders in late July.[/rquoter] I was responding directly to the article. Further it says: [rquoter]Super-delegates exist for only one purpose: to overturn, if necessary, the popular-vote and delegate-count results.[/rquoter] At this point for Sanders to win the nomination that is the only way he can win it. You still haven't responded though regarding why for months the Sanders' campaign and supporters have been criticizing the super delegates as being unfair and undemocratic and now expect them to save the campaign.
