Support NeoGAF

[TheLostBigBoss]

I think that most people here who are not American disagree with this sentiment. It is true that the Democratic Party is more liberal than their only real competition but this is not equal to them having a progressive platform. Are parts of it progressive? Absolutely. Would the whole of the Democratic Party's policies reflect this? Doubtful. I say this as a Canadian that has lived the majority of his life under the governance of the Liberal Party which, until fairly recently, was considered centrist on the political spectrum. Both American political parties fall farther on the right of the spectrum than the Liberal party and, as such, cannot really have what can be considered a wholly progressive platform.

As an American and a democrat I can personally say I don't give two shits how liberal another countries liberal party is when it has zero baring on how MY country is going to operate and get shit done.

 

[Tuck]

And I demand a turkey sandwich!

He's not in a position to make demands. He lost by 4 million votes. This will only happen if Clinton supports it, not because Bernie demanded it.

He didn't actually demand anything. That's the word Politico foolishly chose to use, but all Bernie did was make a speech about what he thought should happen.

 

[kirblar]

Thinking about it, what's the point of calling for all open primaries AND same-day registration? I mean, if there was same-day registration, anyone would be able to register in whatever party whose primary they want to vote in the day of the election, even if it were to be a closed primary.

Sounds like all closed primaries + same-day registration would be best to boost party mebership.

Bernie's not actually a Democrat. That's why all his demands benefit outsiders seeking to brigade the system.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I think he'll get concessions on the number of superdelegates and the number of closed primaries, some token platform considerations (probably on college). DWS is gone after the election anyway (her term ends Jan 2017) so I suspect that's going to be a punt.

As an American and a democrat I can personally say I don't give two shits how liberal another countries liberal party is when it has zero baring on how MY country is going to operate and get shit done.

America First, right?

 

[Holmes]

Honestly Sanders pointing to reforms that can only be performed by state governments and legislatures, and not the DNC, tells me he's uninformed on voting rules in this country.

 

[witchedwiz]

I demand 10 billion dollars

i, for one, second your demand!
I demand that Piecake demand is met!
I demand it!

on a serious note..
sanders is just being a troll i hope?
Because afaik, he lost badly enough that he's no voice in anything at this point..

 

[Irnbru]

But dem Caucases

 

[kame-sennin]

Seriously though, why should all primaries be open? Shouldn't Democrats decide the Democratic nominee?

Because there are only two parties, allowing the parties to control who is the nominee unfairly restricts the political spectrum of candidates that every American will have to choose from in the general election.

Back during Nader's reign of terror, one of the arguments against third party so-called 'spoiler' candidates was that the democrat and republican primaries allowed a diverse field of candidates to be presented before the election. But that's only true if every American can vote in the primaries. If not, then we have an oligarchy with a small group of people determining who is permitted to run for president. The same problem exists with super delegates.

This all seems reasonable.

Why won't the democratic party implement these changes?

The reaction to this seems dramatically disproportionate to what's actually being proposed.

Because they're not reasonable changes. The system is designed to prevent a guy like Bernie or Trump from winning. The system worked.

Because democracy is not in and of itself a good thing.

Yikes.

I don't get it, are people REALLY this upset someone is trying to enact change in their government. It's really bizarre how much I've been defending Bernie lately considering that even if I was a US citizen I wouldn't be voting for him, but my god some of the rhetoric is crazy.

Are people really so extremely FILLED with vitriol that someone is asking for government reform?

That a congress member of 16 years, and life long politician DARE suggest the things he's literally been petitioning for his entire life?

I mean, he got very nearly half the votes in the primaries for goodness sakes. If that doesn't lend to someone's ability to talk about political reform then no one except the president ought to be able to have any opinions on anything.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm not referring to people who are batting down the actual points, that's good. I'm referring to stuff like

This. It's driving me insane because I don't even like Bernie. But Hilary's supporters are an absolute nightmare.

 

[pigeon]

I agree with this at least, the more incentives (shorter waiting times in this instance) to vote the better.

Sure, we'd all like more polling places.

The state of Arizona determines how many polling places there are, so, you know, take it up with them.

I'm pretty sure the Democratic platform already says we should make it easier to vote for everybody.

 

[Somnid]

I guess we shouldn't have reasonable political reform because Sanders is a sore loser?

 

[StopMakingSense]

I mean, i guess I could see a system where a large number of delegates are awarded to the proportional winner as opposed to supers. Really need something to prevent a contested convention in a competitive 3-4 person race.

 

[collige]

I would be fine with closed primaries if we abolished both delegates and supers in favor of raw popular votes. It's totally reasonable to have restrictions on who joins the party as long as that party membership actually has some value, which should go in hand with having primary dates be far less spread out than they are out (ideally on one day).

Because they're not reasonable changes. The system is designed to prevent a guy like Bernie or Trump from winning. The system worked.

But superdelegates aren't what caused Bernie to lose, as is being pointed out in this very thread. Argue about the failings of democracy all you want, but you can't have a fair election system if the outcome of the votes can be ignored entirely. It cheapens the entire process.

 

[kirblar]

Yikes.

It's reality. Look at California- direct democracy there's a nightmare because people are bad. The goal is to get the best outcomes possible. Democracy is not always the best way of getting them.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Because there are only two parties, allowing the parties to control who is the nominee unfairly restricts the political spectrum of candidates that every American will have to choose from in the general election.

Back during Nader's reign of terror, one of the arguments against third party so-called 'spoiler' candidates was that the democrat and republican primaries allowed a diverse field of candidates to be presented before the election. But that's only true if every American can vote in the primaries. If not, then we have an oligarchy with a small group of people determining who is permitted to run for president. The same problem exists with super delegates.



The reaction to this seems dramatically disproportionate to what's actually being proposed.



Yikes.



This. It's driving me insane because I don't even like Bernie. But Hilary's supporters are an absolute nightmare.

Nobody is stopping you from registering for a party so you can vote in their primaries.

 

[gcubed]

Honestly Sanders pointing to reforms that can only be performed by state governments and legislatures, and not the DNC, tells me he's uninformed on voting rules in this country.

i was just going to post this. He's woefully ignorant of the system he is trying to play in, and it shows. Although this isn't a first for him, he has shown he has little understanding of details throughout the primary process

 

[Cipherr]

As an American and a democrat I can personally say I don't give two shits how liberal another countries liberal party is when it has zero baring on how MY country is going to operate and get shit done.

This. It may sound callous. But Im a bit sick of hearing how we should do something like 'x' while you all ignore the humongous amount of differences in context and the way things work.

These are some pretty big concessions to ask for. I mean, Sanders got 45% of the popular vote, so he gets to make demands

He actually doesn't. Its funny that this idea seems to be floating this election though. That second place gets to make party reforming demands because they got a chunk of the vote.

They don't usually get anything, because they LOST. Trump isn't going to get shit when he loses in November for getting 45% of the vote either. There's no participation awards or going away packages for losing election. He should get nothing, unless someone decided of their own free will to OFFER him something. Besides that, nothing.

Argue about the failings of democracy all you want, but you can't have a fair election system if the outcome of the votes can be ignored entirely.

So there's 2383 Superdelegates now?

 

[Evo Shandor]

This is such a tired and stupid argument. What in the blue hell dose what passes for Progressive in other parts of the world matters here?

What matters is that America is only one part of the planet and if their political parties have platforms that profess to be progressive but are what the rest of the world considers centrist, or even conservative, then this belief can stymie actual progressive movements and discourse within the American system.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Yikes.

he's right in a way by which a pure popular (democratic) vote is not a good thing and can actually be quite dangerous. populism can breed inept and/or dangerous leaders (moreso than a democratic republic)

 

[gutter_trash]

you have to pay to be registered as a member of a political party?

there is no party affiliation related to voter registration in general elections. (Canada)

to be a card carrying member of a party, usually giving a yearly donation makes you a member

Liberals trying to dominate are tinkering with the idea of making their membership Free.

---------

Traditionally, Canadian leadership conventions are pretty archaic and antiquated where you have to go in person at the convention. Since Canada is huge, it dissuades people from traveling halfway across the country to attend a Party Convention.

Liberals in 2013 allowed Online Voting ...... I voted for Justin.

Sanders supporters are sore loser cry babies

 

[StopMakingSense]

I guess we shouldn't have reasonable political reform because Sanders is a sore loser?

Discussing primary changes and not mentioning caucuses unfairly benefitted him far more than anything else does make his demands silly.

 

[Stumpokapow]

This. It may sound callous. But Im a bit sick of hearing how we should do something like 'x' while you all ignore the humongous amount of differences in context and the way things work.

Yes the real pathology of American politics isn't ahistoricism, myopia, anti-compartivism, and American exceptionalism, it's dreamers who want America to have policies every other OECD country has.

 

[Valhelm]

Because the Democratic party wants to actually win elections.

It isn't 2000. The demographics of the United States have changed in ways that greatly empower the Democratic Party. If there's any time to embrace actual progressivism, it would be now.

Kirblar, we've been arguing about this on Gaf for nearly a year now. Seems to me that you just don't believe the US needs to move away from lasseiz-faire capitalism. I emphatically disagree.

 

[pigeon]

Because there are only two parties, allowing the parties to control who is the nominee unfairly restricts the political spectrum of candidates that every American will have to choose from in the general election.

Back during Nader's reign of terror, one of the arguments against third party so-called 'spoiler' candidates was that the democrat and republican primaries allowed a diverse field of candidates to be presented before the election. But that's only true if every American can vote in the primaries. If not, then we have an oligarchy with a small group of people determining who is permitted to run for president. The same problem exists with super delegates.

Every American can vote in the primaries.

There is no literacy test to register as a Democrat. It's a free country! Choosing not to register as a member of a political party is a choice.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I hope to hell they ignore him for days.

 

[BanGy.nz]

1) Debbie can go but Tulsi Gabbard can't be her replacement.
2) In states where Republicans do the same.
3) Nah, the rise of Trump show why they're useful.
4) Sure.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Yes the real pathology of American politics isn't ahistoricism, myopia, anti-compartivism, and American exceptionalism, it's dreamers who want America to have policies every other OECD country has.

Aren't you Canadian?

(Oh no, did I just activate your trap card?)

 

[Blader]

What is the point of getting rid of DWS now when she'll be out as chair in 6 months anyway? I don't care for her leadership but that just seems purely petty.

 

[the-pi-guy]

sanders is just being a troll i hope?
Because afaik, he lost badly enough that he's no voice in anything at this point..

He has a small hand, and if he can, and thinks he can make a change; that's what he's going to try.
Doesn't mean any of it will go through, but he will try.

 

[whyamihere]

The fact that there's no talk of getting rid of caucuses kind of speaks volumes.

 

[collige]

So there's 2383 Superdelegates now?

I'm talking about changing a W to an L.

 

[avaya]

What matters is that America is only one part of the planet and if their political parties have platforms that profess to be progressive but are what the rest of the world considers centrist, or even conservative, then this belief can stymie actual progressive movements and discourse within the American system.

Protip. Being 100% progressive means zero chance of winning. Zero chance of winning means you fuck over everything you ever want. What matters is winning since changes are incremental. You get 60% or 70% of what you want. Not all of it. You do it in baby steps.

The overton window in the US system is clearly starting to move leftwards with the ascendant Democratic coalition. Purity tests leads to the dumpster fire which is the GOP today or the Labour party in the UK.

 

[Hazzuh]

As someone from the UK, caucuses seem absurd but I don't see the problem with closed primaries. I have the impression in some states you can't vote unless you join the party months in advance though, that seems like an unnecessary barrier.

 

[psynergylover]

Go home old man.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

As an outsider to American politics the concepts of closed primaries, caucasuses and superdelegates have always seemed like very undemocratic and unreasonable to me.

The US is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Primaries, caucuses, and super-delegates make sense in our system.

 

[And_Gignac]

As an American and a democrat I can personally say I don't give two shits how liberal another countries liberal party is when it has zero baring on how MY country is going to operate and get shit done.

This is why democrats need left leaning independents to save them from their ideological asses.

 

[shintoki]

He'll get 1. for sure.

 

[massoluk]

I don't understand the demand for closed primary. It's a Democratic Party's process. And the demand for new DNC chair is just butthurt speaking. Even Superdelegates demand is kinda iffy considering how it's working out for Trump and the GOP right now.

 

[Imperfected]

America First, right?

To be fair, while it's completely understandable that other countries take an interest in things like America's foreign policy, trade, scientific/industrial, and even environmental positions, if we're talking purely "social issues" liberal versus conservative policies there's not much reason anyone else should have any say, outside of UN agreed-upon basic human rights issues.

I'm always interested in what people from other countries have to say about how hawkish we're being, or whether or not we're being obstructionist on things like stem cell research or cutting oil dependency. I don't really care what people from other countries think about, say, our prison system or tax credits for artistic endeavors.*

*Okay, that's not entirely true, I do care because I think our prison system is busted and I'm always on the watch for alternatives, but I can totally understand why other Americans would feel it's no one else's business but our own.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Aren't you Canadian?

(Oh no, did I just activate your trap card?)

I've lived in the US for several years, but you have correctly identified the country where I was born. Feel free to tell me I need to be franchised to participate in political conversations.

 

[googleplex]

What matters is that America is only one part of the planet and if their political parties have platforms that profess to be progressive but are what the rest of the world considers centrist, or even conservative, then this belief can stymie actual progressive movements and discourse within the American system.

No it doesn't matter because the social and economic realities here aren't that same at in Denmark, or Sweden.

It's a tired as fuck argument because the Imaginary European progressive paradise is just used to discount American Progressives that door manage pass these ridiculous purity test. And it certainly ignores the super conservatives that have tons of power and influence in those same parts along the world.

I care about what progressive can get accomplished HERE.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Give me one reason why the Democratic Party should not be as progressive as social democrat parties in Europe.

because

• we're not as progressive in all aspects
• different values
• they'd be labeled as commies

 

[Quixzlizx]

This is why democrats need left leaning independents to save them from their ideological asses.

In this case, the Democrats are the pragmatists and the "left-leaning independents" are the poisonous ideologues.

 

[gcubed]

As someone from the UK, caucuses seem absurd but I don't see the problem with closed primaries. I have the impression in some states you can't vote unless you join the party months in advance though, that seems like an unnecessary barrier.

there are 1 or 2 states where if you didn't switch your registration far enough in advance you couldn't vote (NY was a long time, too long), but if you registered, you could do it up to 2 weeks in advance. I'm ok with changing things to do same day registration and a switch at like 2 weeks... but again, this is all superfluous crap because the DNC has no say

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

This is why democrats need left leaning independents to save them from their ideological asses.

oh thank god Bernie is here to remove the DNC chair and make lazy people who can't bother to register for the party they will vote for anyways allowed to vote in the parties own primary.

our savior Bernie has saved the world, all thanks to those magical independents

 

[echoshifting]

The fact that there's no talk of getting rid of caucuses kind of speaks volumes.

Yeah, I mean...to all the "why so angry?" posts: this is why. If he truly wanted a more democratic process, the elimination of caucuses would be the first item on his list (of course, I'm pretty sure this is determined at the state level too, but that's unimportant given some of his other demands). The fact that he didn't even mention them in his speech implies that his motive here, at least as far as primary reform is concerned, is to make it easier for outsider candidates to disrupt the Democrats' primary process. That's why this list is absurd at best, at least for me.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

When someone presents a time when the superdelegates voted en masse in a direction that doesn't correspond with the way the voters in the primary voted, they can call them undemocratic.

Don't worry I'll wait...

"Bububu Hillary started with so many SDs compared to Bernie! The primary was rigged from the start!" She also started with way more than Barack Obama in 2008. The people voted then and the SDs moved in that direction. The people voted now and the SDs moved in that direction.

As for the progressive question, I hope that every single person that complains that the Democratic Party is not progressive enough is voting for liberal thinkers at every single level of government. I'm sick and tired of the same people complaining about the Dems full of neoliberals who constantly capitulate to Republicans when their inaction and apathy created the environment which made compromise neccessary to the proper function of government. No President, Obama, Clinton, Sanders will ever enact a "progressive" agenda when the lawmakers that actually get elected are all conservatives because the only people that actually vote are all conservative.

 

[Officerrob]

1. I'm no DWS fan, but this is pure spite from Bernie. No. Bernie just wants Tulsi Gabbard heading the DNC, fuck that
2. Yet he's fine with caucuses which are pure voter supression? I'm all for semi-closed primaries (no Republicans) and no caucuses
3. After seeing Trump getting the Republican nom, superdelegates are going nowhere
4. I assume this means "progressive" in only Bernie's definition, right? LOL. You lost Bernie, go away

 

[And_Gignac]

In this case, the Democrats are the pragmatists and the "left-leaning independents" are the poisonous ideologues.

Pragmatism is just another ideology. Even more dangerous because it pretends to be unbiased.

 

[kame-sennin]

This is such a tired and stupid argument. What in the blue hell dose what passes for Progressive in other parts of the world matters here?

As an American and a democrat I can personally say I don't give two shits how liberal another countries liberal party is when it has zero baring on how MY country is going to operate and get shit done.

Dems/Clinton supporters becoming more reactionary and right wing every day. It's going to be an awful 4 years.

 

[entremet]

I like Bernie, but this is where he shows his lack of political savvy.

You need to build consensus. You need a track record at campaigning with Democrats. How are you gonna make these demands without building your influence first?