Devastating Victories and Optimistic Losses

Sanders can’t win in the south! Clinton can’t win in the north! Cruz is considered a sane alternative to Trump! Kasich just needs Ohio! Rubio will win if he comes in 5th better next time! They’re all nuts!

Our strange election year continues, with polls being terribly inaccurate at times, traditional efforts to stop opponents backfiring, and major media following rather shaping results.

Up is the new down. And quite a few states have yet to weigh in.

A new thread to talk politics through the next big round of primaries.

Comments | 20

  • Poor Kasich, between the four

    Poor Kasich, between the four Repubs tonight, he dresses like the other three, but his Mr. Nice Guy routine has no ass behind it.

    • VP?

      I get the feeling he’s running for VP or a cabinet position now. In any other year he might have done quite well. He’ll have some delegates to bargain with, so it will be interesting to see what deal he makes, and with whom.

      Looks like the GOP wants Cruz to be the anti-Trump now. Rubio will drop out after Florida. Of course, Rubio would probably like some deal, too, but he hasn’t really mustered the support to demand much.

      ….

      Really enjoyed the recent Democratic debate in Miami.

  • Cooking for Democracy

    Both major parties have diluted democracy by instituting “superdelegate” systems. This turns out to weaken the process by which they themselves select candidates. Trump and Sanders have brought this weakness to the fore; their candidacies have shown us that the range of issues that we, the US voters, have on our mind far outstrips what the mainstream in each party has historically been willing to consider.

    The ‘mainstreaming’ trend has had the effect of homogenizing the parties’ consideration of issues, leaving them with platforms that seem to the voters like political pabulum. Trump is trying to ‘cook the process’ among Republicans toward a pro-rich and pro-corporatist agenda with diversionary ‘spices’ that conceal the terrible taste and rancor that his policies, such as they are, would generate. Bernie’s tried and true, as we Vermonters know, and his statements and stances taste ‘delicious’ to me, and to the voters they reach. Quite healthy, too! 😉

    • Primaries and Super Delegates

      Since the super delegates have never determined a primary outcome they haven’t as yet diluted democracy. However what is more important to keep in mind is that up until the 1960s almost all primaries were caucuses unlike those of today but rather where state and party officials had tremendous weight in deciding who the nominee would be. This concept of a straight primary vote such as exists in Vermont and the majority of states today is recent. Prior to the 60s state party officials had a tremendous amount of control over who won the nominations. Voting the same way in the primaries to determine each party nominee as in the general election to elect the President is historically quite new. I see a lot of confusion and misunderstanding lately about the whole process. Maybe it’s time to bring civics classes back.

      • Civics Classes?

        Heaven forbid that the people really know what’s going on behind the government smokescreen.

        • Well it would be helpful if

          Well it would be helpful if they understood a little more about the process. Read a letter to one of the local papers where someone seems to think that Leahy and Dean by saying they’ll stick by their pledged votes to Clinton no matter what were somehow “stealing” her vote. It would be nice with the internets and all if people used the tubes to do a little research about how it all works instead of resorting to conspiracy theories and misunderstanding. Actually now that I mention it you don’t even need a civics class anymore, just a computer, google and the ability to screen out irrelevant information. Brookings Institute edu has some great pieces on the history of voting in the US starting with the original need to be a white male property owner in order to vote and follows the process and development of voting rights all the way through. Whenever someone cries “they’re stealing my vote” fact is most of us weren’t even allowed to vote initially or for quite some time. So actually it’s been a process and probably a good step now would be to just dump those super delegates although I’ll bet the Republicans wish theirs could switch their votes right now. (Republicans have fewer super delegates and they can’t vote at will but as their states popular vote goes so they can’t use them to prevent Trump from the candidacy. Which is the reason the Dems structured their Super Delegates as they did after a string of unelectable nominees like McGovern. Just wanted to take a little more control back, the party’s focus being to gain the White House every election cycle. Hmmmm, considering Trump, maybe the Dems should keep the Super Delegates after all. The Republicans wouldn’t be in the fix they’re in if they had more S-delegates and pledgeable votes, but it’s so much fun watching them squirm. Kudos to all the people who went out in Chicago and protested Trump’s little rally by the way. Big thanks! Good work.

          • Mental Clutter

            In the case of current elections, I strongly agree that civics classes, via social studies classes or Google self education will give voters a better understanding of the process. It might help some nonvoters to increase their awareness and interest in the voting process.

            However, the time and depth to study the history of elections and voting processes would amount to mental clutter and wasted on people in an election year. Perhaps civic classes that focus on the more narrow current elections and voting processes would be very useful. Most voters have the attention span of a tsetse fly (forget about the nonvoters).

            It’s not likely the voting population, most of whom are out of school and struggling to find/keep their jobs will learn their particular state’s civic needs.

    • Correction

      I wish to correct my statement “both major parties have diluted democracy by instituting ‘superdelegate’ systems …” Reputable sources indicate that the Republicans do not have such a system. However, the weakness of their system is that in any state where candidate gets most of the primary votes, they will take all the delegates from that state. Thus Trump has captured a number of states where he actually got a small plurality of the total votes cast.

      • The Republicans have Super

        The Republicans have Super Delegates or at least they call them that. However there are only a few per state and they are obliged to vote for whoever wins the most electoral votes in the state contest. So it’s quite different. As far as I know it’s not true that in any state where a candidate gets most of the primary votes, they take all the delegates. The Republicans have both winner-take-all states as well as proportional allocation states. Better find some new reliable sources. Again, I heartily recommend Brookings Institute.edu.

  • Pissing against the wind

    Until the United States nationalizes all Federal elections, President, Senate and House of Representatives into a uniform, easy to understand process then we will continue to wallow in 50 shades of requirements that denies and discourages most people from participating.

    The notion that Federal elections is the state’s rights or purview to decide fifty-one different ways of voting processes and requirements , by law, and to allow the restrictive Two-Party/Multimedia System of elections to continue will stifle much needed change. It perpetuates the current mess Americans have to deal with and firmly discriminates and discourages people to vote and/or register to vote.

    If we can’t overturn this Two-Party/Multimedia System then we will continue to piss against the wind.

  • Next Up

    Florida
    Illinois
    Missouri
    North Carolina
    Ohio

    ….

    Trump had an unusually bad week. The GOP is going full force to knock him down, and Democrats are joining in. His rallies are becoming mêlées. I watched one of his speeches set in an Ohio airplane hangar. The backdrop was his plane, decked out to look presidential.

    Trump has a rambling style. He starts toward a point, but takes many tangents to get there, often contradicting himself. “We’ll fight for the First Amendment (cheers!). They don’t want us to say the things we’re saying. The press is awful. Look at them back there (boos). We’ll reform libel laws so we can sue them when they lie. So we’ll protect the First Amendment. And, isn’t this country great? (Cheers). Everyone eats dinner, right? Terrorists are sitting around the dinner table discussing the beheadings and drownings they did that day, laughing at us for following rules about torture. They think we’re weak. Obama has made this country weak. (boos). We’ll make it great again. (Cheers).

    The fascism is blatant. Logic distorted.

    • You summed up a Trump speech

      You summed up a Trump speech beautifully. I heard he doesn’t prep at all, must off the top of his head, whatever’s underneath the comb over.

      • no facts necessary

        He does seem to make stuff up as he goes along, such as “facts.”

        What’s weird to me is the low-income folks supporting this rich guy. Not that he’s rich and they aren’t, but that they seem to think of him as some sort of business expert because they saw a reality show where he fires people.

        He’s not that rich or successful, he just plays that on TV. A search of the Forbes 500 list from 2015, the richest people in the world, shows that he is way up at… #405 on the list Bill Gates has $79 billion. Trump only has $4.1 billion. Put him on the pauper list. There are at least 404 that are more successful. He’s a mild successful small brand commodity.

        • Double Binds

          Let’s remember that Trump won the GOP primary here in VT, even in our neck of the woods.. Very interesting that other Repubs are not fully repudiating him, essentially saying they’d support him bergrudingly rather than a Democrat.

          As a little thought experiment: If you had to choose, which would you rather have: a xenophobic, racist, reactionary country ruled by bullying and greed, where dissent is outlawed, even punished violently… or…a land of constant environmental turmoil, submerged coastlines, prolonged droughts, freak storms, rogue heat waves?

          Of course, given our current trajectories, we might be lucky enough to get both.

        • I"m of the opinion that it's

          I”m of the opinion that it’s all smoke and mirrors. If you look at his actual record with 5 failed businesses, 4 bankrupt casinos and on and on, I don’t think he’s worth what he’s claiming. He’s still wealthy by any measure but I’m not buy the $4 billion figure. He’s got a very expensive amount of overhead and I read that he took a tax break the last couple of years that indicates that he’s made under $500,000. Which seems like a lot but not if you’re claiming to have $4 billion. He’s PT Barnum reborn.

          • P T Barnum

            Comparing Trump to Barnum disses Barnum.

          • The Onion is never Wrong

          • Vote Barnum!

            Barnum was given a fantastic piece of property as a child by his relatives, and was told all about it for years by his elders. It sounded fabulous! He finally went to see his inheritance when he was old enough, and found it to be nothing more than a swampy mess of nothing. He learned a lesson about believing what one wants to believe.

            He had a long string of businesses, most not doing that well, but he hit a stride in entertainment and made his name.

            He messed with people in a fun, rather harmless way. When his American Museum (25 cent admission!) got too crowded, he put up signs telling people “This Way To The Egress,” which many assumed was another exhibit. It was, of course, the exit.

            His building burned to the ground after about 20 years of operation, and he moved on to circuses.

            I would definitely take Barnum over Trump. Ringlings, no. They were kind of mean. But Barnum. That would be fun.

          • Good points both of ya. My

            Good points both of ya. My apologies to PT Barnum.

Leave a Reply