Yup. Young people need to get and vote instead of complaining on social media when things don't go their way.
Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
Yup. Young people need to get and vote instead of complaining on social media when things don't go their way.
Matt_
World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
Pretty much
there is still a slim chance that Bernie can recover but he would need to massively over perform his predictions going forward and some super delegates would need to change allegiance
Not sure about the republican primary. How things will work if one person drops out and if they decide to endorse another candidate
most are expecting it to go to the convention and for some fuckery to occur by the establishment
Bernie can't get the excitement that Obama received in 2008. Obama's campaign had a better pulse on my generation.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Heart of the matter right here.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Exactly. There are reasons to support Clinton. I just wish her supporters were honest about her here. The delusion is frustrating. This is basically her argument on the issue.
Are you against money in politics? Yes
Why? Money in politics corrupts politicians
Do you take massive amounts of donations from special interests? Yes
Has this money corrupted you? No
Why not? Didn't you just say...? [???]
Ok. So it is not corrupting..? So is there a problem or not?
I mean, I understand why she can't just come out and say "Yes, I have been corrupted", but it is all clear as day.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
She told wall street to cut it out. Its ok.
TheBaldEmperor
Member
Holy smokes at that voter turnout.
Yup, this is why so many Hillary, Hilliary/Bernie, and Democrats is general are urging everyone to vote for whoever the Demi nom because history has proven time and time again that we don't vote in numbers to secure victories.
based on this imagine, Trump will be president.
Comparing to 2008 is pretty dumb. Talk about an outlier. That Obama campaign was special.
Plus, Dems show up in November for Presidential elections.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Voter turnout during the primary is meaningless.
The turnout for the GOP was so large due to the large number of viable candidates. It's a far more competitive race, which leads to a larger turnout.
The turnout for the GOP was so large due to the large number of viable candidates. It's a far more competitive race, which leads to a larger turnout.
Mighty Chin
Banned
That tells me Dems would be satisfied with whomever gets the Nom. No bearing on the General.
Gross, but expected going dem voters also just don't give a fuck at go time but they will spout up until that time...
Congrats president Trump
I don't think it is dumb. Bernie needed that Obama magic to have a chance against Hilary.
At least he has the integrity to uphold his own beliefs, and not adjust them according to what is the popular opinion. Integrity goes a long way
He may not be as polished as Clinton, but his plans to have substance and they could actually work. He may not have as many political ties as Clinton, but he would influence the establishment to readjust their headings as the Chief Executive.
Have a good day
1. Integrity for a politician is being able to put aside your own personal feelings and represent the constituency that you represent. When you're POTUS that means you need to govern for both sides of the isle, no matter how hard one side wishes you couldn't. Doing otherwise is simply unethical with regards to the very oath of office elected officials are required to take.
2. His plans have no substance. They're as vacuous and devoid of merit as Trump's "build a wall and make 'em pay for it" bullshit. He couldn't successfully oversee Veteran's Affairs as chairman of their committee in the senate and turned it into a national scandal that has done more damage to single payer than any other news story of the last 20 years. That is literally all on Sanders, including insider quotes about him trying very hard to look the other way on VA hospital fraud because he couldn't fathom a government healthcare program failing to badly. His methods for paying for any of it lack any real merit, as proven by just how many democratic economists have rolled their eyes at the figures Sanders' campaign props up as "proof" of the winfall he'll produce. He's an empty suit. An impassioned one who has good intentions, but at his core Sanders is an ideologue who has never accomplished anything but being the "not good enough" contrarian in the room.
3. The only influence Sanders would have as the nominee is to get steamrolled by Trump. The only influence he would have if he did make it into office would be as a substantially less effective, less capable Jimmy Carter who would usher in 8+ years of massive over-correction to the right. He isn't capable of effecting any of the change he's promising.
Learn your political history please. the repeal of Glass-Steagall was political horsetrading where Clinton rolled back the "wall" between investment banking and consumer services in exchange for a massive expansion in home ownership programs for lower income families. The notion at the time was that the SEC and FDIC would do their job and to the extent that they couldn't investors would knowingly shy away from the bad bets. In exchange the entry point for home ownership was reduced for millions of Americans, something long extolled as the embodiment of the "American Dream". It wasn't a give back to the banks, it was political policy that went afoul when other agencies failed to live up to their end of the bargain. Did Clinton catastrophically under-estimate the danger of market shorting? Absolutely, but the legislation didn't come from a source of corruption.
Not that we should take this lightly but 2008 was special and republicans are out after 8 years of a dem president.
But if this is the narrative close to election season then yea...worrisome.
Macho Madness
Member
It says "something" but whether or not it matters is unknown at this point. We know that there hasn't been a sudden huge surge of Republican registration which you'd expect if Trump truly was growing the party. There was a big surge of Democratic registration when Obama was running in 2008. The Dem primary is not contested as much, and they're mostly satisfied with either candidate. Primary voting is quite a bit above 2004 and 2000, which is good.
Meanwhile, look at the 70% of Republican primary voters who voted for another candidate who say they'd be dissatisfied with Trump as the nominee. That's a good reason for the primaries to be way up.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The numbers still speak to Democratic complacency, which no one can intelligently deny.
boiled goose
good with gravy
"Following your logic, only the voice of one's employer matters." Heh?? I don't get this point, but i will proceed with the rest of your post.
------
Now we are getting somewhere. So we are in agreement so far right? Onto who can donate and how much.
Do you see the difference between large sums of money from a few and small sums of money from many?
Representative democracy should represent constituents equally or cater to those who have more money? Is it one person, one vote or whoever has more money wins. Should legislation be passed to represent constituents or constituents with money?
There is a complex discussion to be had on how to fund campaigns. What should be the limits. Who can donate and how much. These are all fair, and not trivial questions.
Do I think people (or corporations, unions, etc.) should be able to influence politicians based on who has more money? HELL NO. I think any influence should be proportional to your share of the constituency. That doesn't mean you have to do what the majority says. There is leadership, there is the constitution, etc. But should money buy legislation? I say no.
Do we disagree?
Please be honest here. Take your time to think it through. Be honest because if we disagree, then our differences are pretty fundamental and we have to take a few steps back.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Dont think it is dumb. It shows that Obama was more exciting than Bernie. For whatever reason, people care less now. It is worrisome. Republicans are coming out in full force.
DragonSworne
Banned
Plus, Obama didn't win the general election by a huge margin either.
gutter_trash
Banned
Yup, the opposition party's presidential primary usually has higher turnout than the incumbent's
i wouldn't take too much out of the primary season as opposed to the GE
exmachina64
Banned
How many of these states have open primaries?
In the primary. The general is a different beast.
I didn't vote in the primary because I knew Hilary would win VA and I'm good with that. You'd better believe I will be voting in the general.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Yep. The states after do not have his strongest areas (evangelical voters in the Deep South, conservative sections of the Midwest and Texas).
If that's the case it was just bad taste.
This plus turnout is often less for the party holding the White House.
Uhh no. Based on this image, GOP turnout was extremely high in GOP dominated states. Dem turnout only slightly down in Mass and even less so in swing states. It doesn't change much nationally.
RustyNails
Member
Hilarious. You people need lots of perspective here. Primary turnout doesnt correlate with GE turnout. 100 out of 100 mouth frothing crazies coming to vote for Trump versus 50 out of 1000 "normal" people coming out to vote for Hillary does not mean Trump got this in the bag. Hillary's remaining 950 voters will come to her aid in GE (or a percentage of those 950. Read on...) Hillary's appeal is wide and diverse. Trump's appeal is narrow and focused. If Trump gets all the racists to vote for him whereas Hillary gets some of her base to vote for her, Trump still loses resoundingly. Hillary just has a larger votebank. End of story.
Second point, having 5 candidates on GOP side naturally drives up the numbers vs 2 on Dem side. Lastly, Obama was a once in a lifetime phenom. Presidents like him dont happen often.
silvermember
Banned
I am pretty sure he was joking.
Roland_Gunner
Member
He won by over seven points. In a Presidential election that's enormous. The first Bush had roughly the same margin when he won 40 states in '88.
Journeywalker
Member
Surely someone has done a correlation between primary participation and GE participation?
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
this just means that Dem voters already know who their candidate is and are sitting out primaries. The dem primaries aren't a hydra of regressive candidates all vying for the same votes like the Republicans primaries are
pretty much this
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Uh, you just admitted your own complacency lol.
It worked this time but still
ED: nvm mind, I'm the monkey -_-
The primaries are different but that attitude is still prevalent in the GE.
Macho Madness
Member
President Dukakis disagrees that turnout in primaries is an indicator for the general election.
He also disagrees with general election polling mattering 9 months out.
He also disagrees with general election polling mattering 9 months out.
brainchild
Banned
This is pretty much what 90% of the dems are gonna do in the primaries, lol
Roland_Gunner
Member
There really aren't enough data points to do a true correlation but they don't really line up all. In 1980, the first Reagan election, there were substantially more Dem voters in the primaries than Republicans. The Dems had a huge turn out in '88, possibly more people than will vote for them this year, and got killed in the general.
Who do you work for? Because the picture you are painting is the individual voters voices don't matter because they are all beholden to their industry/employer they work for. The secretary who works for Wall Street and donate $25 to Hilliary is obviously donate on the behalf of Wall Street, not her own reasons.
So tell me, who are you shilling for when you donate money to Bernie's campaign?
What an absurd argument.
So the RNC is going to ignore millions of voters and splinter the party even more because they can't control him?
How is that working out so far?
But complacency with regards to what?
Maybe most dems are ok with either candidate and so don't want to take time out of their life to vote in a primary. Maybe most dems favor Clinton and see her as the foregone conclusion, so why sweat the primary? Maybe we're seeing a weak grassroots "get out the vote" push in these states because they'll go red in the general and Clinton had such a lead in them that Sanders didn't even try?
It isn't analogous as 2008 was a freakish primary season for the dems. Obama was a rock star running against a prohibitive favorite. He built a national infrastructure to win primaries nationwide and used internet connectivity and social media to push turnout like no one before. It was a one-off and not something to build any trends and projections off of.
Additionally, this plays entirely into the rationale of Clinton as the nominee. Sanders is incapable of generating similar momentum to Obama, obviously, as he hasn't done it within the party primary. Therefore the democratic candidate is going to need broad appeal outside the traditional party confines. Sanders v. Trump/Cruz is a battle of polar opposites. This is the first POTUS election in a long time where the GOP is clearly giving up the middle of America. the Dems would be fools to not pounce on it with a more centrist candidate. Clinton is a perfect choice in that regard as she has ties to the slow but steady progress enacted by Obama and (obviously) the Clinton boom years. She might have a hard time with the far left 10% of the country, but they'll have little other choice (Stein I guess). The 50% or so down the middle who aren't party affiliated and just want the government to maintain status quo? She is their champion.
You'll have to parse other states, but in Massachusetts Bernie got 2 times the votes of trump alone and still lost.
So you have a graphic that is objectively true, but means little without context.
I do believe Trump will have a galzanizing effect in deep red States. The question is what effect appears in the swing States that matter.
Cruz votes most likely would go for Trump but Rubio votes are in the air. Cruz and Trump are anti-establishment candidates while Rubio is establishment and most establishment Republicans are throwing the biggest shit fit over Trump. I know my parents are Republican and they'd rather not vote than vote for Trump.
He won by 5 million in 2012 (120+ electoral votes) and 10 million in 2008 (almost 200 electoral votes). His 2012 matches Clinton in the 90s and his 10 million is the most since Reagan in 84.
In modern history, Obama's margins were pretty good.
It definitely is a bit worrying to me that Democrat turnout is so much lower than 2008. It's also extremely worrying to me that a lot of Bernie's diehard fans are becoming very anti-Hillary. I want Bernie too, I love him, and think he has a better chance in the GE against Trump. But I see pleeeenty of people on my Facebook wall who claim they'll either stay home on election day, or vote Trump just to be anti-establishment despite how monstrously different Trump is from Bernie.
I'm of course doing my best to get all of my friends to see reason, but it's really making me paranoid that this Bernie to Trump trend is being undersold.
I'm of course doing my best to get all of my friends to see reason, but it's really making me paranoid that this Bernie to Trump trend is being undersold.
Well usually people vote Less in the primaries.
So Dems will still come out. Hard to imagine even more GOPers coming out of the cracks. But we shall see.
Dems need to get fired up.
Ding ding.
Also worth noting, the fact that Trump has angered the Latino population means next to nothing because the only states in which they matter are usually Democratic states anyway.
It really will come down to minority turn out in most of the swing states.
Oh I know, I'm not at all expecting Bernie to be the nominee. I'm just saying making statements about this upcoming general election based on comparisons to that 2008 Obama campaign + 8 years of Bush is misleading. Dems will show up when the bell rings.
- Status