Dems Abandon Democracy, Show Their True Colors

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

 

 

Also super interesting discussion beginning at 6:54 about how Democrats (especially party elites) are essentially just like Republicans in that all they truly care about is power and retaining their power. When things are inconvenient for them, they will abandon all their supposed principles (will of the people, money in politics, etc.) to ensure they keep their power.

 

Case in point: all those who previously cried "but the popular vote!!!!" after Hillary lost in 2016 now take no issue with ignoring the will of the people and the candidate who wins the most votes (see: superdelegates, Iowa caucus) when it's inconvenient for them.

 

And then people wonder why a majority of Americans hate both parties, The Republican and Democratic Party alike. Neither of them actually care about the American people or their supposed principles at the end of the day if it means losing their power.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

^^

Just like Trump's victory engaged a potential new generation of people to get politically active, this kind of action would deflate all of that and leave us weaker than where we started before Trump won.

But Dem's are gonna risk it it seems!

Look if Bernie was actually a bad candidate who had no cross over appeal or chance of beating Trump and data suggested it, I would understand the "I want to win!" mentality behind denying him the nomination, even if their means of going about it are still heinous and undemocratic. But unfortunately its just not the case. They screamed no one likes him, hes unpopular, hes a socialist and he can't ever win, but the data has been consistent if not trending upwards.

He does well against Trump. He does well in swing states. He does well even if you point out that he is a socialist. He beats all the other Democrats in head to head matchups and is essentially tied in his against Trump #s with Biden (who has been going down though). He has expanded his base from 2016 to be the most diverse base in the field, he has unmatched fundraising power (bloomberg is self funded not fundraising), he has the best ground game and infrastructure to increase voter turn out with his base, he appeals to working class voters who we lost in 2016 to Trump with the added caveat that minority working class people are going to outnumber white working class people by 2030 - its an emerging demographic that they are smart to capitalize on. His policies at their core are overwhelmingly popular amongst our electorate and the country at large, and even amongst democrats and including moderate dems, he is the most liked candidate.

Their case just doesn't have any merit. Which is why I have to agree with Krystal. Denying him the nomination with superdelegates is a disaster waiting to happen, and doesn't seem to genuinely be in the interest of "defeating Trump" - if they want to defeat Trump at any cost, then they must logically consider Sanders as a proxy of accomplishing that goal, no matter their personal disdain for him and his movement or whatever. Hell, he could be the least effective president in American history, but if he can beat Trump, which we say is our shared goal, then we have a serious obligation to consider it, and back him if our other options appear unfruitful. And so far, they do.

[rumours 45,521]

23 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

And then people wonder why a majority of Americans hate both parties, The Republican and Democratic Party alike. Neither of them actually care about the American people or their supposed principles at the end of the day if it means losing their power.

I’ll actually give the Republican Party some more credit here than the Democratic Party, though in terms of the primary system. The superdelegate system present in the Democratic Primaries is completely ridiculous and openly subverts the will of the people. I’d gladly take the winner takes all strategy of the Republican Primaries over the “we have superdelegates who can vote however they damn please despite the will of the people”. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

6 minutes ago, rumours said:

I’ll actually give the Republican Party some more credit here than the Democratic Party, though in terms of the primary system. The superdelegate system present in the Democratic Primaries is completely ridiculous and openly subverts the will of the people. I’d gladly take the winner takes all strategy of the Republican Primaries over the “we have superdelegates who can vote however they damn please despite the will of the people”. 

Superdelegates are just a relic of elites exerting influence on our political system.

The people pick a candidate that the elites don't want? They get to veto.

It's complicated though, if you consider that Superdelegates would likely have denied Trump the nomination in 2016, or at least tried in large fashion had they existed on the Republican side. Trump ran a populist campaign in 2015-16, and populism threatens power and influence of elites, so superdelegates exist for self-preservation.

Would we be in a better position as a Democracy if Hillary Clinton had bested someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz?

I would say yes in some ways, but similarly screwed in others (foreign policy, patriot act and legalized superveillance, information wars, influence of social media, money in politics, etc.). If Hillary Clinton had done things like ask a foreign power to intervene in our elections, would she have been protected by the Dems? Honestly probably, but not as unanimously as the Republicans.

~~~

The idea that Superdelegates are there in case like, the populace got grifted by an evil dictator who pretended to be good and that they could decline that nomination sounds nice... but I think in reality that's just a boogeyman excuse to let them keep denying actually potentially revolutionary candidates from winning. If instead Trump had governed as a populist, implemented term limits, "Drained the swamp", saved entitlements from the chopping block from Republican interference, appointed moderate judges, implemented Universal Healthcare (yes, he said he would lmfao) in replace of Obamacare, etc... Then you could make the case that Superdelegates are useful

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

34 minutes ago, rumours said:

I’ll actually give the Republican Party some more credit here than the Democratic Party, though in terms of the primary system. The superdelegate system present in the Democratic Primaries is completely ridiculous and openly subverts the will of the people. I’d gladly take the winner takes all strategy of the Republican Primaries over the “we have superdelegates who can vote however they damn please despite the will of the people”. 

I take your point. That being said, I wouldn't say that the superdelegate system does subvert the will of the people, only that it can. At least to my knowledge, superdelegates have not yet overturned or subverted the will of the people in a primary. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's certainly possible.

Also, the rules from the reforms after 2016 state that the superdelegates can't do whatever they want until the second ballot. 

Alas, it is an archaic and antidemocratic system. For a party and people that like to claim being for the people and in support of democracy, they really need to be principled about that and put their money where their mouth is to show it.