Just a little shout-out to my ol’ stomping ground of D.C. As a former resident of Washington, let me say that Sanders staying in until D.C. has voted is appreciated. It won’t change anything, but residents of D.C. are accustomed to being overlooked and ignored with all things political, which is very strange for such a political city.
The fact that he’s made statehood for D.C. his final campaign issue before the convention is also appreciated. The district has license plates that point out the irony of taxation without representation. Politicians are opposed because it will give Democrats extra seats on Congress, but this former resident says it shouldn’t be about balancing politicians. It should be about about giving everyone in the county representation in Congress.
So, in our on-going commentary on the 2016 campaigns, we find ourselves in an interesting place.
For the GOP, they currently have a “winning” candidate that few people like and who probably won’t win in November. Democrats are currently looking forward to the “establishment” candidate, who will probably become quite established as President in the next year.
Inside the Democratic party, factions are lining up to debate how far left or right to make the agenda. This is probably the biggest achievement of Sanders thus far – the first attempt to tug the political pendulum back to the left since Carter. With Trump as an opponent, one wonders if the Democrats even need to “pivot” to the right at all?
Anyhow, it is nice to note that the complete 2016 primary season is coming now to an end. May it rest in peace.
Voting rights is also an 'Electoral College' process problem
In my native state of Maryland, statehood for D.C. has always been in two minds. The capitol of this country needs to be independent from any state legislature. You cannot have two sitting legislatures administering to the same territory that comprises the federal government. It looks like DC has a city executive government similar to NYC with a mayor and city council, etc.
It should be noted that the 2014 population of DC is about the same as the population of Vermont.
However, the issue of voting rights is also an Electoral College process problem. Moreover, the two-party system (The One Incumbency Party) has corrupted the voting rights in this country. It has always astonished me that it is the Electoral College “electors” who are the real voters for Presidents. (Vice-Presidents are not elected.) [DC is “generously” allocated 3 electors]
Every voter who votes their conscience, not their/or a party favored, should read this entire link::
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
Interesting tidbit.
Interesting tidbit. Originally the second place candidate automatically became Vice President. But then they had a tie for President (Jefferson and Burr) so they realized maybe that wasn’t going to work so well. The next change was VP running separately from President but that didn’t go on for too long before they came up with the VP running on the same ticket as President as is still done.
Indeed
People with a good sense of history often offer tasty morsels of somewhat obscure information like this for those who are history buffs. Thank you.
Population of Washington, DC is larger than Vermont
Population of Washington DC is larger than Vermont, of course it
should be a state with two US Senators and a Representative to Congress.
I am shocked at how few people there voted in the primary.
The Constitution stipulates
Because the Constitution stipulates what is statehood, DC’s status may not be a question with a simple answer.
DC is indeed larger than Vermont. In 2014, DC = 658,893; VT = 626,562
DC Don't Stand For Dodge City
I think the low turnout is party because everyone there knows their votes don’t count, and partly because the media says Clinton won, despite her not having won yet.
Blah, blah, constitution and capital cities (I’m wearing my DC hat here…) – give us a good reason why a US citizen should be denied representation, but still have to pay taxes? Maybe the fair thing is to skip the representation and the taxes. Anyone who lives there gives up their participation in the country’s affairs, but also lives tax free?
I prefer to just give DC residents representation.
(The tile of this post is a go go song…)
DC voter Turnout Record High
Actually the turnout of registered voters in DC was over 20%. Average turnout this cycle was 14.4% making the Washington DC voters some of the most involved in this election cycle. It was a RECORD turnout in DC. Even knowing that the race was pretty much over the DC voters had something to say and they said it loudly and clearly. http://www.bustle.com/articles/167041-how-many-people-voted-in-the-washington-dc-primary-the-nations-capital-had-a-record-turnout
"It's worth noting...
“It’s worth noting that since Trump became the Republican party’s presumptive nominee, voter turnout in Republican contests has declined from an average 16.6 percent to 8.4 percent.”
David Brooks, a conservative New York Times writer
From nonvoters to voters
My personal preference is that every American can vote. Maybe someone can workup a plan to address a way to change DCs population from nonvoters to voters?
Statehood?
Statehood?
the wooing begins
So I read that Sanders was beat in DC, pretty handily I must say, and the two of them have had a meeting where Sanders laid out his demands, but he has not committed to supporting Clinton in the general election. He feel the next 5 weeks before the convention is a time Clinton can woo him.
Not for nothing, but really, WTF? Sanders ran a great campaign, did well, but in the end, he lost and its over. The general election could be sealed today with Bernie’s endorsement, but no, he stalls. His decision or non-decision benefits no one but Trump.
I am not crazy about either Clinton or Trump, but there is no other candidate that can win. The idea of Trump as President is a horrible idea, so I will vote for Clinton. There , I said it.
I find it ironic that Bernie
I find it ironic that Bernie feels entitled to make all these demands in exchange for his support when in fact he lost by much larger numbers to Clinton than Clinton did to Obama. For all the large crowds it was a not anywhere near as close as race as in 2008.
AP already called it for Clinton (just kidding)
The key is that Clinton hasn’t actually secured the nomination and won’t until the convention. If she had done better, she would have the required delegates already. Sanders prevented her from crossing that finish line. She has to wait and see what super delegates do.
Also, from Sanders side, as soon as one throws their support, bargaining is over. Holding out for what one wants, and being in a political position to do so, is smart.
The deal offered Tuesday must not have been good enough (noting that a deal, along the lines of “you lost, it is over..” would not earn any support at this time) Good politics means working out a deal, and Sanders isn’t stupid.
Clinton gets to decide if and how she will reach out beyond her base for support. Good politics means working out a deal, and Clinton isn’t stupid.
Trump will almost certainly lose this fall – his vanity and lack of GOP support almost guarantee it. It doesn’t help Trump at all if Democrats spend a few weeks bargaining. Both are anti-Trump and say it often.
There is no reason to pivot to the right, either. Dems can pivot to the left and still crush Trump. Clinton could probably propose universal health care and still win enough votes. It would require her to ditch some major supporters, but she could do it. Why not aim a bit higher, I would guess, is what Sanders might have been suggesting in their meeting. Can’t do anything crazy, I would guess, might have been the response.
you have presented some compelling facts cgrotke
but save a crazy hat event (we’ve witness plenty in this election cycle) Hillary will secure the nod, so let’s not be too cute about saying its not over until all the votes are counted. If she happens to be indicted or removed from the ticket, Joe Biden can step right in and run. He is a more compelling candidate to many.
All this”working out a deal” and “bargaining” and “holding out for what one wants” stuff you talk about you, sound like Trump, haha! Seriously, Sanders lost, period, and he has no bargaining position. But wait, you say, his base of support, yeah that’s important, but really, how much? Where else will his supporters go? Support Trump? Of course not. Sit out the election? Sure why not, but if Trump gets in, its on their heads.
Perhaps Bernie doesn't
Perhaps Bernie doesn’t understand how it’s done since this is the first time he’s been a Democrat. Obama led Hillary by far fewer voted delegates than Hillary leads Sanders. I believe Clinton leads Sanders by 3X the delegates Obama lead by in the race. Obama by 100, Clinton by around 300+. This is not counting superdelegates. Clinton actually lead by popular vote by a narrower margin than her now 3 million, she led by around 200,000. She is considerably further ahead than in the 2008 race. Convention is that once it is apparent that one candidate leads in the voted delegates enough to clinch the nomination the other candidate/s concede so as not to impede the party’s progress in the General. There is no precedent for what Sanders is doing and he is not anywhere near as close as in past races where candidates have gracefully stepped back. He’s on shaky ground and might be hurting himself in the end if he continues down this path.
I believe that in most or at
I believe that in most or at least a majority of the past races it is more common for the candidate to not have the majority of voted delegates going in to the convention and for the superdelegates to put them over the top number. What is unusual is for a candidate who has lost to hold out until the convention and attempt to bargain for major concessions as Bernie is doing. There has more commonly been a concession to the leader by late May as Clinton did for Obama in 2008.
Don't bargain, then
Okay then, Clinton can win without any concessions to Sanders supporters. Good luck with that! Just don’t blame Sanders if she loses.
As I said, it is her campaign’s choice. Obama threw off the left about this time in his first campaign, telling Move On to move on. Clinton may do the same thing. It might work. Worth a gamble?
Perhaps you both are right. No olive branches are required for sore losers who mean nothing in the end. Why make any offers to that tiny, meaningless group? It should be about Clinton winning, not the Democratic party. The GOP did well ignoring the tea party. Dems will do well ignoring those crazy Sandernistas.
The more I consider, you are right. Clinton should tell Sanders and those who voted for him to jump in a lake, and then take full credit for her win or loss in the fall. She should be the one to split the Democrats in the process.
The vagaries of the Clintonites and “Sandernistas
To answer Rosa about statehood…if VT with 30,000 less people than DC can be a state, so should DC.
To the convention stuff…The need/desire for a concession bothers me a little bit. I’m not sure Hillary is impeded much by Bernie not conceding. He acquired a decent passionate showing and it means his ideas they shared shouldn’t be lost along the way. But like fishboy and others I see the key is to forestall a Trump victory. Not sure I care much about the vagaries of the Clintonites and “Sandernistas.” It does, though, in its entirety makes for a rather interesting election.
The stars must be aligning in
The stars must be aligning in an unusual manner today. Vidda and I are in agreement …. twice. Statehood for DC Yes. And once you look at the numbers I’m not so sure Hillary needs to be bowing down to Bernie’s wishes all that much. He had huge turnouts which don’t appear to have translated representatively into actual votes. As I said she’s ahead of him by about 3 times more than Obama led her in voted delegates (this is NOT counting superdelegates). Because of Bernie’s back story his showing was very impressive but nothing that is ground shaking in the history of Democratic primaries in recent years. I’m not so sure though that conceeding items she doesn’t want to will necessarily translate to given votes for Clinton. If they only came to the rally and didn’t vote in kind for Bernie, whose to say whether they will for HIllary. Another interesting mathematical tidbit. Clinton leads Trump in popular votes by over 4 million. She also now leads Sanders by over 4 million popular votes. The numbers belie the need to “give in” to Bernie on anything. Of course there are the veiled threats of violence at the convention but then that would be blackmail wouldn’t it.
Antares on the sky's dome
Gee, are all these planets and a star cluster converging for a close encounter we won’t want to miss? Whoever’s backstory gains the ascendancy the great alignment is scheduled for the second Tuesday, November 8th.
Astrological Miss
Will Hillary Clinton “fundamentally transform the party?”
Of course not. She wasn’t the one to do it..
Who would?
The Democratic Party does not want you to know.
How’s life?
It’s not so good.
Let’s elect someone who can inspire tens of millions of voters to change this shit, let’s start talking about change, let’s bring many millions of young people into the Democratic Party, oh…. wait a minute, let’s not. Vote for Her.
Maybe she could simply
Maybe she could simply consider working with some of Sanders ideas because it would be good for the country. The man ran a campaign with plenty of innovative changes that- if implemented- could make “equality for all” a little bit more imaginable. The future of “more of the same” isn’t going to work. I think it became evident in this campaign season that most people want some kind of change. Clinton is not going to be an innovator as president. The status quo will remain intact and the country will continue to be just as messed up as it is right now. Surely, sanders has one or two ideas that she can live with?
BernieBros Unite!
You are starting to sound just like Bernie, a sore loser who didn’t like the fact they got beat fair and square.
I wonder how many of these BernieBros realize they are feeding the right wing fantasy of rampant voter fraud with wacko conspiracy theories? Probably not many as they don’t appear very mature or self aware.
I can't vote for either of them
If Trump wins it's on
If Trump wins it’s on nobody’s heads but the Republican Party. They allowed this racist, homophobic, misogynist idiot to reach the heights he is now in. Clinton needs Sander’s supporters if for no other reason than to prove to all the voters who dislike her so much that she is willing to compromise a little for the sake of the country. Bernie has every right to expect her to embrace some of the platform he ran on. He gave her a run for her money that nobody – least of all her – was expecting. Die hard Bernie supporters will not be casting votes for Hilary if she doesn’t make an effort to address and agree to some of the ideas that have Bernie has talked about and that his supporters agree with. There is always a write in vote or a vote for Jill Stein. Don’t assume Sander’s supporters will surrender quietly.
Compromise
I read this twice Kris. I agree with your comment. The only thing I’d add is the unrealistic possibility, politically speaking, of a Clinton-Sanders ticket.
I think there is probably a
I think there is probably a better chance of having a herd of unicorns appear in my back yard than of having Clinton ask Bernie to be VP. Who even knows if he’d be agreeable to that? I have such a deeply entrenched distrust and disgust for her – this may be the first Presidential election in my years of voting that I simply have to pass on.
I agree with you regarding Secretary Clinton,
But Trump is the pits.
I hope you vote, here some food for thought, most everybody I know voting for Trump has never voted in their lives, not once.
8th-Grader Impersonate Trump, Ted Cruz, Obama, Hillary & Sanders
In case you haven’t seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1zREZk6AU4