Stannis wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:I don't know why you guys are consistently saying you're offended, etc. when you're calling someone like myself entitled which you're using as a pejorative. I don't need to know EXACTLY how many voters would shift in those situations to say the Math is Real.
Here's the numbers
Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida
Bush won Florida's electoral votes by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost six million cast
So yeah, voting for Nader did swing the election.
I get that. But why does the DNC feel entitled to those votes? To the point where they blame those voters for past elections.
Citizens vote for who they want. If they live in a swing state and still vote third party, clearly they don't think the DNC runner is any better than the Rep runner.
Stan my man, I don't harbor strong opinions about the DNC to be perfectly honest. I just go by how the actual votes go and thus far even with the DNC heavily favoriting Clinton and now Biden, I have yet to see anything that makes me believe they could or did functionally rig either nomination that deprived Bernie of the win.
There are always numerous factors, but I try to stick to what the voters say to apprise the situation, because I think that's where the truth is found when it pertains directly to what our choice is in November. I think it is fair to say Bernie didn't get the votes and not over-litigate it.
I also think the DNC is not a highly functional political organization in the way the GOP is in their sheer Machiavellianism. The DNC is not whom I look to for guidance of any kind and I fully expect them to have house favorites.
One aspect of the DNC complaints though that I take some exception to is that they only play dirty. They may to some degree, but overall I also think you cannot run for the nomination of any party without agreeing to the terms of engagement they set down. That's why I've said Bernie could always have run as an independent, but he chooses to fight for the D nomination.
That's a choice and basically it is their rules he has to abide by. Yes, it may not seem fair, but he had another option and he took theirs. If he really does have a third of the population or better and he got all of those donations, I don't see how you can argue against him having run as an independent. In fact, I have to ask why he didn't, because with hindsight I think he may have a better shot at the presidency outside of the democratic machine.
I will confess that if Elizabeth were in Bernie's shoes I would be wavering right now about her conceding the nomination too, but that would only be because Joe is old and you never now what could happen. But Bernie is old and he had a heart attack so I think both of them are a crap shoot health-wise.
But if Joe stays healthy, I don't know what benefit Bernie will derive from staying in as I think politics is a game of leverage and I was saying his leverage diminishes over time. You may think he will be able to press his case and push the dialogue more to the left, but I actually think those concessions come mostly from back door deals, not virtual salons the rest of the way.
So I don't begrudge Bernie staying in, because its a wager on Joe vs Bernie's health and I get that. But if they don't get sick, I think it is a political miscalculation and I say that in a friendly way, not in order to contrive a way to get rid of Bernie.
I really have no issue with exercising the right to vote by voting independent in November. I only take exception to accusations of intolerance hurled at pragmatists who more actually not moderate, but feel compelled to align with them due to the circumstances.
This is the thing about what I see as the binary choice of Trump vs. No Trump. The unfortunate by-product of this is the a priori consideration necessarily is going to make lots of policies and issues take a backseat. To me it is not all that different than Hitler vs. No Hitler. I see the fate of the world hanging in the balance thus it matters where the swing votes go.
And that in no way marginalizes our political objectives. IMO it certainly means survival vs. arguing over wasted dreams, because if we don't survive there won't be any dreams left. The veneer that hides class warfare is completely gone now.
Whereas some Bernie supporters see that warfare coming from the moderate Democratic factions, I'm saying yeah, but the slavery and destruction that will be wielded by a consolidated GOP is on an order of magnitude that will make any corrupt Democrats seem like a picnic by comparison.
The difference is that massive not by virtue of the Democrats being paragons of virtue. This is solely because the GOP is so unrestrainedly evil that if they go unchecked there will be nothing left for any of us to build upon in five years.
That I'm struggling to convey that even a status quo is better than annihilation is baffling to me, but here we are. I just don't appreciate being told I'm condescending for saying the mature choice is survival, then reconstruction. I'm being patient, because survival requires me to be so we can come out of this united, not bearing grudges and facing a political, environmental and cultural apocalypse after we get out of this virus mess and hold the elections.
And because there's some really crazy stuff in here being said I will add, NO, Biden is not going to destroy the country. He is not evil. He may have facilitated some bad choices and supported the wrong people being he has been in positions of influence before. He is flawed, but he is going to serve in the capacity as President in a manner that helps the country settle down, international relations to get reordered, environmental issues to be addressed, the current mad corruption to be prosecuted, women's rights to be preserved. We can work with that and carry on. No such option will exist if Trump wins so I will continue to say a vote in any swing state for anyone but the D nominee is a vote for tyranny.
