Bluer White
New Yorker
If Hillary or Bernie gets 269 and and Bloomberg gets 1 or 200, GOP is golden.
But which stable of super PACs will be able to drag their candidate out of the primaries and into the general?
Bernie's or Mrs. Clinton's?
If Hillary or Bernie gets 269 and and Bloomberg gets 1 or 200, GOP is golden.
Interesting. In the US cash is needed to purchase blocks of commercial advertising in different media markets. Rates vary based on city size and time of day that an ad airs. That's where most of our money goes. Add to that jet travel across a large country. It's the model of our system here, not sure how much it resembles yours.
It's a big part of it, yeah.
One of the reasons Bernie Sanders has endeared himself to some is that he's a staunch supporter of publicly funded elections that theoretically eliminate private donations/bribes. But honestly, that's only half the battle. The fact that individuals are spending multiple billions on their campaigns is wasteful. We need to implement a strict cap on campaign expenditure. Even counting inflation, campaigns were never anywhere near as expensive as they are now.
I was thinking about this same tweet earlier. Shame that sort of attitude has made its way onto FYM too.
I mean everyone complains about money not being spent in the right areas, is it just me or is disgustingly ironic that everyone's complaining about money and the people who are running for president saying they'll do something about it are only doing so because people are pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars to them?! Am I insane?! Or is that COMPLETELY fucked? think of where the billions of dollars could go if you had a better system? Fuck me.
Ax knows how Aus politics works much better than I do but I don't think our prospective prime ministers even need money to run for office..?
It really is a shame that the nation's socialist tradition was basically destroyed by the Reagan Revolution. I don't think many people realize that compared to all of American history, Bernie isn't really that radical. He's pretty much FDR reincarnated.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Supreme Court is a big reason why I want Cruz to be our next president. He knows the legal system
Al Gore being an awful candidate cost Al Gore the election. Blame him.
I'm agreed on Al Gore. Nader, I didn't think much of him running the way he did, but I've come to the view that if it was that close that Nader's role reduced the world to waiting on a supreme court judgement over hanging chads or whatever the fuck you call them, then it was too close. Gore campaigned like the inevitable candidate, only he ran like Julia Gillard (Australia) in 2010; with the administration's history amputated from his pitch (since Clinton's personal scandals were not something he wished to be associated with).
Hey it's the Nader cost the election fallacy!
More democrats voted for George Bush in Florida than they did for Nader.
Al Gore being an awful candidate cost Al Gore the election. Blame him.
The two party system is a sham. It's time to die a quick and utterly painful death. The candidates for both parties are absolute jokes.
Tennessee is a red state. If Romney had lost by one state and not won Massachusetts it would be silly to say he should have won his home state. Nader aside there are more credible issues with 2000 and the stealing of that election .I also get a bit tired of the Nader vilification. Al Gore would have one had he simply WON HIS OWN HOME STATE. He couldn't even do that much.
I did not mean to imply that you have not talked about the actual issues here, and I admit that I'm probably taking a bit of overall frustration about this on you because you're just the latest person I've seen talk about it.i do see it, and while i agree that it is a small number of people, it's not something that i can remember being a part of democratic politics up until now, but it IS something that we saw in 2010 in GOP politics. i don't see policy positions that are the left wing equivalents of the Tea Party (not even sure what that would be), but i see the same structures at play. several people in here have commented on the aggressiveness of Sanders supporters, so this isn't coming out of nowhere. we can ponder the scope, but we cannot argue that it is or isn't "a thing."
not sure if you're addressing me in particular, but i haven't been all that critical of Sanders, and in fact have openly pondered who to vote for. i don't think i've actually "ripped" Bernie himself anywhere, and have consistently done what you say i haven't -- debated the viability of his economic policies and my concerns about his grasp on foreign policy. i don't think it's fair to take a small issue and present that as if that is the only thing i've offered.
you know, that's fine. my beef, as stated, is the growing strain of ideological purity that has so far not had much voice in the Democratic party -- when you have to sew together a broad coalition of blacks, gays, single women, labor unions, etc., you have to make compromises and often settle for least worst options in order to win office. what i am seeing amongst a small but real section of Sanders supporters feels more at home in the GOP of 2010 and 2014 than in the Democratic Party i've known. i'm not going to not comment on it in a discussion forum.
Tennessee is a red state. If Romney had lost by one state and not won Massachusetts it would be silly to say he should have won his home state. Nader aside there are more credible issues with 2000 and the stealing of that election .
And I wouldn't use "very sane and levelheaded" to describe anybody who is either libertarian or anti-vax.
One of the reasons Bernie Sanders has endeared himself to some is that he's a staunch supporter of publicly funded elections that theoretically eliminate private donations/bribes. But honestly, that's only half the battle.
Publicly funded elections are a HUGE part of the battle. I wish all of these so-called angry young republicans, tired of the system, and turning to Trump out of desperation could see that.
If the public is funding ludicrously expensive two-party elections, that doesn't solve everything.
We need to level the playing field across the parties so new voices can make a legitimate impact.
Who says that? Trump? Republican establishment? Liberals? Of course they do. Everyone in Washington hates him because he's taking the Washington machine head on and winning. We would be blessed as a nation to have Ted Cruz as our next president.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference