'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[Mithrandir]

I thought we had been over this. "The People" can put anyone on the ballot they want to. They can spend any amount electing him or her they want to. There were over 40 people on Presidential ballots in 2012. The GOP and the Democrats are private groups who put candidates on the ballots. They are the most successful at it. They don't have a right to stop you from putting someone on the ballot. You don't have a right to stop them. The Party is made up of people. Do you think they should not get to nominate someone?

And WE the People, i mean Sheeple, just go vote for a Democrat or Republican! Simple.

[senorsheep]

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me, with particular reference to Bernie supporters, that getting all riled up, attending rallies, twittering, facebooking, and the like, without having a clue how the process works, is sort of like buying a block of tickets for the Angels games, driving out to the West Coast, painting your face, getting a Mike Trout tattoo, and settling into your seats behind home plate, without knowing the difference between baseball and croquet.

Eh, I don't think it's quite the same. The electoral process is often imprecise and messy, and I understand how shocking it can be for neophytes to see for the first time how the sausage is made. I'm hopeful some good can come from the outrage of the newly politically engaged - both major parties could use some pressure to make their voting processes more sensible and transparent, IMO.

[onejayhawk]

She's too busy punishing bathroom transgressors so she can't be troubled with the trivialities of FBI findings, silly.

I thought I said she would not indict. Did I miswrite that?

The current report is given weight because it's an official finding. Yet, there are those that dismiss it.

Despite the fact that there are some real questions about the impartiality of the IG, the report says the issues with the management of the Secretary of State's emails are of longstanding and go back with the last five Secretaries of State. The report also singles out Colin Powell, who had a similar set up. The criticism is there. It definitely wasn't a good arrangement. But to see this as a damaging report after the hyperbolic and frequently insane coverage of this issue is crazy. This was never more than some poor judgment overlayed by a big bureaucratic pissing match all slathered over by a thick layer of partisan game playing and media derp.
Like most Clinton scandals, if there there hadn't been months, maybe more than a year of weird conspiracy theories, expected perp walks and general nonsense, one might read this and say, wow, that's disappointing. But after all that, it's just a big nothingburger. Like it almost always is.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-emails

Conspiracy theories work both ways. I recently had someone tell me that Bill Clinton was impeached because Newt did not like his seat on Air Force One.

J

[senorsheep]

How concerned are you guys about the prospect of unrest at the national convention in Philadelphia? I was watching a History Channel documentary about the 1968 Democratic Convention, and it got me thinking about some parallels.

1968. The country is in a malaise. Bitter political and cultural divisions are widening. Post-RFK, there is no clear popular favorite among the Democratic nominees. Violence erupts at the convention, unnerving the national electorate. An unlikeable and seemingly unelectable Republican candidate seizes on the public distaste for the chaos, and launches a new campaign theme of restoring law and order. The rest is history...

OK, I know that's over-simplifying, and there are a lot of differences between 1968 and 2016. Still, when people scoff and say "How could Trump get elected?," I wonder if an outbreak of unrest at the national convention could make the impossible suddenly possible?

[onejayhawk]

The 1968 convention has no parallels. There was a dead body dominating all other considerations. Also, there were three strong factions.

J

[senorsheep]

The 1968 convention has no parallels. There was a dead body dominating all other considerations. Also, there were three strong factions.

J

I'm talking about the parallels between the violence and chaos then, and the possible violence and chaos in Philadelphia. I certainly don't expect the same level of unrest as 1968, but I wonder if there could be enough to influence voter behavior on a significant scale. I'm imagining a scenario where the Sandernistas and the #BlackLivesMatter crowd decide to Bern it down - not an actual fire (I hope), but angry demonstrations and general hooliganism that gets out of control. I'm imagining Hillary Clinton trying desperately to appease them. And then Trump seizing on the chaos, and her accommodating reaction to it, and declaring himself the candidate who will put a stop to it. Could that sway a large faction of #NeverTrumpers to get back in the game? Could it sway a significant number of independents and Undecideds to his side?

Just engaging in some wild speculation. A lot of people seem pretty certain that Trump has no chance, but I think they underestimate how unforeseen circumstances can drastically change the electoral tides.

[TranaGreg]

Just engaging in some wild speculation. A lot of people seem pretty certain that Trump has no chance, but I think they underestimate how unforeseen circumstances can change drastically change the electoral tides.

Absolutely. I had thought that Trump actually tested the waters a bit a couple of months back with some comments that seemed designed to provoke confrontation ... and he got some pretty positive feedback in terms of popularity ratings. And it's Philly ... as far as cities that could be the setting for something like this it's up there, right behind Chicago & Baltimore. It's interesting, I had been thinking that Cleveland would be the contentious, possibly violent convention.

[senorsheep]

Eh, I don't think she'll be indicted; I expect some kind of non-criminal finding of wrongdoing. She'll apologize for the lapse, and that'll be that. At which point, all the indictment hype will probably help her, because once that goes by the wayside, her supporters will declare her cleared, her opponents will look like witch hunters, and any legitimate concerns about her poor judgment and disregard for protocol will be buried in the ashes.

[baldgriff]

So her apologizing for what appears to be another lack of judgement will be enough for her to gain the faith of the people? Her numbers right now are worse than they have ever been and we really are not seeing anything to improve them.

Are these really the best either party has to offer?

[senorsheep]

So her apologizing for what appears to be another lack of judgement will be enough for her to gain the faith of the people? Her numbers right now are worse than they have ever been and we really are not seeing anything to improve them

I don't think most Democrats and independents have an issue with her judgment or capability. I think, ultimately, the e-mail scandal probably demonstrates nothing more than her arrogant contempt for protocol - the rules don't apply to her if they happen to be inconvenient. She clearly didn't follow the rules, and quite possibly didn't understand why they were in place, but I doubt she was being knowingly reckless with critical state information.

[senorsheep]

While this may be true, it seems that the "arrogant contempt for protocol" has been shared by multiple other Secretaries of State, including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. Now, one may wish to make the argument that Hillary's arrogant contempt exceeds that of her predecessors, presumably due to her use of a private server, but that strikes me as a relatively thin argument and one nuanced enough to whoosh right over the heads of the average voter.

Oh, I'm sure she's just one of many. There are a lot of big egos at that level of government. And probably a lot of people who don't have the technical knowledge to understand how their actions put data at risk.

And, yes, with no criminal charge, the email scandal is just another nothing burger with the public.

[Hodor]

I thought we had been over this. "The People" can put anyone on the ballot they want to. They can spend any amount electing him or her they want to. There were over 40 people on Presidential ballots in 2012. The GOP and the Democrats are private groups who put candidates on the ballots. They are the most successful at it. They don't have a right to stop you from putting someone on the ballot. You don't have a right to stop them. The Party is made up of people. Do you think they should not get to nominate someone?

You can say this all you want and it's no closer to reality than you and I making a trade in boxscore.

The people are given a choice by the party, that's no choice.
If the people want someone other than the person the party wants and votes thier choice the needed delegates, rules are in place or can be adopted to put the party choice in.

There hasn't been a president in the past 150 years that wasn't one of the two major parties. The only serious third party candidate in that time was Nader who caught hell for even doing that.
Saying that the people have a realistic choice is like having Mel Brooks giving them the choice of Hump or Death.

Not really a choice at all and hardly representative of All the people's will.

But keep telling yourself that.

[Hodor]

I am positive there will be unrest, disruption and violence at the convention.

[DMT]

I am positive there will be unrest, disruption and violence at the convention.

Weren't you also positive that Sanders would be our next president?

[Hornsby]

I am positive there will be unrest, disruption and violence at the convention.

There's almost always unrest and violence at a political convention where things are contentious. I was in St Paul in 2008 for the GOP convention, and there were small riots every day. As long as there are people who have a beef with either the party, the candidates, or the policies, there will likely be arrests.

Just watching the Trump rallies around the nation, I feel like there's a far greater possibility of something major going down at the GOP convention than the Democratic one. Of course, some of that depends on what the leaders of their particular groups say...it's incumbent upon everyone to keep a cool head and urge their supporters to do the same. Both at their own parties convention, and the oppositions.