USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
Yeah and that's very scary. Why even have a democratic vote when political insiders decide in the end? Crazy system 
It's not a democratic vote. It's just the party deciding who to nominate for the general election, technically the DNC could push whatever nominee they wanted on all of us (which some would argue they already do because of superdelegates).
They're the only country in the world that has a whack primary system. Everywhere else just lets party members pick party leaders.
Christie and Fiorina are out.
Christie and Fiorina are out.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
In a non-parlimentary system it makes sense. If we were electing party representatives that would them pick the President, sure. But, we do not.
I don't have a problem with a primary election - Canada's PM was chosen to lead his party by a primary election, as was the president of France. I think it's the arcane levels of the primary/caucus in the US that make it so difficult. If it was a single cross-nation primary, it would be much less circus-like.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
True, but it would pretty much mean only well funded/establishment candidates would have any kind of real chance to win
This is different...how?
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
2008 is probably a fair example, a nationwide primary would have probably made Hillary the nominee instead of Obama, who built up support as primaries went on.
I do think they could/should make the season shorter and bundle more of them, but the current system has the advantage of showing strengths and weaknesses in candidates and allows each party to have an discussion/argument/screaming match over the direction of the party .. which for whatever candidate ends up winning the general election will be the direction the party goes/the policies it pursues.
I do think they could/should make the season shorter and bundle more of them, but the current system has the advantage of showing strengths and weaknesses in candidates and allows each party to have an discussion/argument/screaming match over the direction of the party .. which for whatever candidate ends up winning the general election will be the direction the party goes/the policies it pursues.
I will admit that I like the concept of having four regional caucuses/primaries followed by like...33% of states every couple weeks.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Even if the congress blocks the majority of ideas, wouldn't someone who has radical ideas like Bernie Sanders being elected as president represent an ask for change on the citizens' part? That has to count for something, at least on a theoretical level even if not on a practical level.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
For sure, generally when a President is elected, they have some kind of honeymoon period where at least some watered down version of their ideas pass. But breaking up banks, single payer health care, massive tax increases, free college for all, everyone gets a pony is not happening.
Not without significant change to the electorate. Theoretically, if there was a Sanders wave (probably accomplished only if Trump or Cruz win and tons of Republicans stay home), it's possible they could retake the House and get up to 60 in the Senate.
It's also possible that Jim Gilmore will win the GOP nomination. Possible is one thing....likely is another.
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
It's gonna be a miracle to beat Clinton when she basically doesn't even have to show up at these things? Sanders is up against the banks, wall street, every major corporation and the democrats. Fight the power 
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Media corporations also have an obvious bias for Hillary. It's kind of an annoying feature of political comedy shows that I follow. Stephen Colbert does a good job balancing it out but I stopped watching Trevor Noah's show because of its blatantly obvious Hillary endorsement.