2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy do you feel that Democratic voters in so many of our states should not have a vote?
I cannot understand how anyone can justify giving more of a say in our candidate selection to, for example, South Carolina, than we do to California or any of the other states whose Democratic voters would be disenfranchised by not allowing them the right to vote?
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,534 posts)She needs to start attacking her likely opponent, Trump.
That means she won't have time to attack Senator Sanders. We need to get with the Program!
And just in case:
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It would feel literally like a candidate was forced upon you with no voice at all.
If many of the vocal Hillary people had their way, that is exactly what would happen.
I say let the people vote and keep your disenfranchising mouths shut already.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,534 posts)I'm in CA, and we're dead last to vote.
I do get what you're saying.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)and Hill supporters know she is going to have overwhelming wins in the more liberal states.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Where someone was yelling about the western states "not being diverse enough"
California is majority nonwhite. it has more black people within its borders than any three southern states combined. But "It's Too White." Hawaii and New Mexico are also majority nonwhite. They're also "too white" though.
This was very puzzling to me.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)In all seriousness, I don't.
Hillary happened to be supported by a larger proportion of Black people than Sanders and they used the issue to make political hay. It had nothing to do with anything but convenience. It was a cynical and sickening use by many of the "diversity" issue as a political football.
It makes me more sick than almost anything.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I was saying last night that we saw something very similar in 2008. It's very, VERY cynical, and I think it can be, in this case, traced right up to the campaign itself.
PufPuf23
(8,756 posts)democracy because it does not serve their selfish and ego-centric interests.
IMHO POTUS and other primaries for federal elections should be on the same day and under the same rules and nomination based upon a straight up vote; otherwise the process is fraught with gamesmanship, lies, and corruption.
Look at what is going on now. Look in "our" media. Look at DU.
msongs
(67,371 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Somebody here said that?
I'd like to see that.
Got a link?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)If you dispute that that post does not qualify, I will not bother to respond because it will be useless to do so. I'm just posting for any undecideds.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)The calls for Sanders to drop out and the Sanders supporters to stop supporting him are literally ALL OVER the place.
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)The primaries are too strung out. My ideal campaign would give the candidates 120 days. More than enough time to visit states, shake hands, kiss babies for photo ops, and make as many empty promises as possible. Have two or three pretend "debates". No more campaigning allowed after the deadline.
And then, every state has their primary within a couple weeks after that...April or May would be great. Weather may not play as big a factor in turnout that way. Polls would be open 24 hours, from Friday through the following Sunday, to accommodate those holding 2 or 3 jobs, which is; to quote a dumbass ex-prez. "uniquely American".
It would cost a whole lot less, and we would be done bitching and puking a whole lot sooner.
Yeah, I know...I'm dreaming. But then, that's what "Democracy" has become in the US...a dream.
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)If local officials want their voters to be relevant to the process and to participate before the race has been effectively decided, they should choose to schedule earlier primaries.