Philadelphia DNC 2016


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

While I might disagree that voting 3rd party is throwing your vote in the trash (Not that Libertarian and Green Party aren't both trash parties, seriously they're crazy-town) I feel that a vote for a 3rd party is a decent use of a vote, it's not gonna change anything, but i still think it's useful because one day there might be a 3rd party that isn't trash.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
My major concern is that...all along analysts and politicians have been predicting Trump losing/dropping out, and so far he had defied those odds.
One big problem is that the current polling algorithms rely on identifying "people who are likely to vote".

Don't confuse "analysts and politicians" with "polls." The polls have shown Trump having a pretty consistent plurality from day one that almost exactly matches/matched his actual vote totals. The analysts and politicians are actually the ones who were trying to say that Trump wouldn't get the nomination despite the polling evidence, not because of it.

Those same polls that gave Trump the nomination have always given Clinton the election, sometimes by a landslide, sometimes by a modest win, but it's never even been particularly close.

Now, you're right that we're entering the well-understood silly season for polls right now, and you have my permission (as well as the New York Times') to ignore polls until after Labor Day. But they've actually been extremely good at calling things in this election cycle so far.


Squeakmaan wrote:
While I might disagree that voting 3rd party is throwing your vote in the trash (Not that Libertarian and Green Party aren't both trash parties, seriously they're crazy-town) I feel that a vote for a 3rd party is a decent use of a vote, it's not gonna change anything, but i still think it's useful because one day there might be a 3rd party that isn't trash.

One day, there might be an opportunity for a third party to replace one of the existing two parties. Likely the major party they're replacing will have completely collapsed before that really happens.

Other than that, you're far better off working within the existing major parties and trying to shape them than in third parties. Or working outside electoral politics - movement building, that kind of thing.

Edit: that's not because of problems with the existing third parties. Whether they're trash or not is really irrelevant. The political mechanics are against them. The system doesn't allow for it. We'd need to change the Constitution.


thejeff wrote:


Edit: that's not because of problems with the existing third parties. Whether they're trash or not is really irrelevant. The political mechanics are against them. The system doesn't allow for it. We'd need to change the Constitution.

Not really. The Constitution doesn't specify how individual states are to handle elections ("The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"); if New Jersey wanted to experiment with Single Transferrable Vote, it is completely free to do so. There's not even a requirement that Congressmen be selected by district; New Jersey (with its twelve representative seats) would be free to send the 12 highest vote getters on a statewide basis to fill its twelve districts --- or the twelve survivors from a STV free-for-all.

Of course, I don't actually see how this would improve matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Update: The DNC's head will no longer be speaking at the convention, following the Wikileaks revelations about rigging things for Clinton.


Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.


Scott Betts wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
From the wiki links showing the polls scandles,
Didn't happen.

I was curious, Citizen Devil, what you were referring to by the polls scandals?

I am, of course, slightly familiar with the wikileaks DNC trove (not that I paid much attention to them, as I pointed out in another thread, I didn't think Bernie had a chance in the Democratic Party before he even decided to run in the Democratic Party) but the only article that I saw specifically referencing polls was this one, from a site emblazoned with a virtual tribute to Andrew Breitbart, which, for obvious ideological reasons, I'm not fond of:

Wikileaks Release Shows DNC Colluding With CBS News, Wording Poll Data Against Bernie Sanders...

More mainstream accounts:

HuffPo: Leaked Emails Suggest DNC Was Conspiring Against Bernie Sanders

CNN: DNC chair won't speak at Dem convention following Wikileaks fallout


Rednal wrote:
Update: The DNC's head will no longer be speaking at the convention, following the Wikileaks revelations about rigging things for Clinton.

Damn ninjas.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.

Yes.


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I would have preferred someone a bit more liberal as a choice. I think Hillary may be underestimating the republican dislike of her. Just because a faction of Republican voters hate Trump doesn't mean they like Hillary. If the more "moderate" Republican voters stay home, and the hardcore Bernies supporters do as well, Hillary may not be able to defeat Trump.

"May not", sure. It's politics. Anything can happen.

Frankly, I doubt many of the hardcore Bernie supporters would vote for her unless she admitted she was a corrupt pawn of wall street and promised to resign in January. Even if she'd picked Elizbeth Warren for VP. Anything less would just be another Hillary lie. Even that probably would be.
Most aren't that hardcore, of course. Most would have switched with a Warren pick. Of course, most will switch anyway.

If moderate Republicans stay home, she wins. This is a play for centrist independents, not for actual Republicans. She'll get some. And she'll sweep Democrats, despite the Bernie Bros. She'll win African-Americans by close to Obama's margins and Hispanics by even more. She'll win women by a landslide too.

Trump will dominate among white men. Especially older white men. But to steal from Lindsey Graham, there aren't enough angry old white men left.

If Trump doesn't get a ground game campaign up and running and can't organize it better then he ran the convention, he's going to lose in a landslide.

Depends on what you consider Hardcore.

From what the press is saying, only about 8% of Bernie Sanders supporters are not on board at this point, the other 92% support Hillary after Sanders endorsement.

I don't think Hillary really needs to worry about whether Sanders supporters will support her or not, as Sanders said it (basically) himself...if not her...it's Trump...and I don't think a lot of Sanders supporters really like Trump more than Clinton.

Picking someone more conservative is a wise choice for her (IMO). I think a LOT of people don't like Trump, and though he chose Pence to try to consolidate the republican party with him, and though Trump himself is actually quite liberal in many things (in fact, from his ACTIONS rather than his words, he may actually even be more liberal than Clinton in several areas), I think he has a serious lack of support from the middle and liberal audiences which Pence won't give him.

On the otherhand, with a more conservative VP pick, Clinton can utilize it to try to carve away any people in the middle and even a number of conservatives (maybe even Cruz will choose Hillary with the hope she dies and her VP takes over?) who don't like Trump.

The bigger problem are with those who hate BOTH candidates. They probably feel like their are NO good choices this election.

Trump has shown that he can invigorate those who normally aren't voting among the White Male Middle and Lower class blocks that are discounted in many polls.

On the otherhand, he seems to be hated by everyone else overall.

At the same time, the distaste that many have for Clinton and the establishment could work against Clinton. She seems to be gathering support from DNC leadership, but that speaks of someone who is part of the system, and if this election cycle has shown anything, it's that a LOT of people don't like the current system, or those who are part of the entire "club" as it were.

She also seems to be distrusted a LOT, even by those who support her.

Despite those detriments on her, right now it seems like it could be a landslide win by Clinton.

I don't see Trump currently ahead (but that uncounted White male vote can't be completely discounted and could bring up a surprise win, the most reliable source that I've seen actually give him a 25% chance of winning the election).

Unlike what one posted above, the more likely scenario if Trump wins is a rehash of 2000 with Clinton winning the popular vote, but Trump getting the electoral vote (by the skin of his teeth...maybe even going to the SC again?).

Both sides seem to be using the argument that the reason to support them, is if people don't, the other gal/guy wins...and their party wouldn't like that no matter how much they dislike their candidate...right?

I think many on the otherhand are looking for a viable 3rd party candidate. Pity that this doesn't become a popular idea in the US, because if there was ever a time a 3rd party candidate might actually be able too win, this is it. All they have to do is show that they are a viable choice where people will not be tossing away their votes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.

There are multiple Clinton supporters in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, don't "actually" know anyone in this thread.

I do know a bunch of labor activists, mostly paid staffers oddly enough, who are Hillary supporters.


I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I, for one, don't "actually" know anyone in this thread.

I do know a bunch of labor activists, mostly paid staffers oddly enough, who are Hillary supporters.

Now I'm sad 'cause Anklebiter doesn't think our friendship is "actual." :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.

I don't think that working with congress is a thing that happens anymore with a democratic president.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.

I really have no idea when this idea that the GOP was suddenly gonna greet Hillary with open arms came from, but I chuckle at it every time. She will probably get a lot more of what she wants from a Republican congress - but they aren't anything an actual progressive should be happy about.

She's going to face the same opposition to health care reforms or minimum wage legislation Bernie would, but they'll be damn happy to agree to any safety net cuts or international trade deals she is keen on.


Hitdice wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I, for one, don't "actually" know anyone in this thread.

I do know a bunch of labor activists, mostly paid staffers oddly enough, who are Hillary supporters.

Now I'm sad 'cause Anklebiter doesn't think our friendship is "actual." :(

I now regret not including a "virtual" counterpoint.

Otoh, I did invite you to a con a few years back and you snubbed me! Where's Dicey?!? I want someone to smack!


Waitaminnit, you weren't even in this thread when I said that!


That's politics for you, Doodles!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Shrugs]

Belulzebub, would you like to be my new politroll thread friend?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

SEE YOU IN PHILLY! SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE AT THE DNC

Well, not me, I'm going to another #BLM march in Manchester. Apparently, there will be more Oathkeepers with grenade launchers. Can't wait.

At the last minute, Mr. Comrade's new girlfriend, whom I am dubbing Nancy Donovan for the purposes of these boards, convinced Mr. Comrade to go down, so if you're out there looking for rabble-rousers, look for two gingers in matching red commie shirts, bluejeans and sleeve tattoos and tell 'em Doodlebug sent you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.
I don't think that working with congress is a thing that happens anymore with a democratic president.

I'm not saying you're wrong BNW, but given the reaction to Merrick Garland's nomination, I think that's more on congress than the democratic president.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.
I don't think that working with congress is a thing that happens anymore with a democratic president.

I have just been wondering when they will begin impeachment proceedings... before or after her actual inauguration.

PS: Not that I am saying she should be impeached. Just that they will.


CBDunkerson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.
I don't think that working with congress is a thing that happens anymore with a democratic president.

I have just been wondering when they will begin impeachment proceedings... before or after her actual inauguration.

PS: Not that I am saying she should be impeached. Just that they will.

OTOH, there was a lot of talk of Obama impeachment too and that never happened.

They might try. Barring the revelation of something truly criminal in Clinton's record - which has been inevitable and imminent for 20 years now, they can't possibly get a conviction in the Senate.
Depending on the make up of the House, it's pretty unlikely they'd even get articles passed there. If the "Freedom Caucus" types grow by a lot, the chances go up. A lot of more mainstream Republicans will have a hard time supporting a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt without something solid to go on.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Update: The DNC's head will no longer be speaking at the convention, following the Wikileaks revelations about rigging things for Clinton.
Damn ninjas.

Looks to me like CNN has changed this headline three times since I saw it last night.

I hate when they do that!


thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.
I don't think that working with congress is a thing that happens anymore with a democratic president.

I have just been wondering when they will begin impeachment proceedings... before or after her actual inauguration.

PS: Not that I am saying she should be impeached. Just that they will.

OTOH, there was a lot of talk of Obama impeachment too and that never happened.

They might try. Barring the revelation of something truly criminal in Clinton's record - which has been inevitable and imminent for 20 years now, they can't possibly get a conviction in the Senate.
Depending on the make up of the House, it's pretty unlikely they'd even get articles passed there. If the "Freedom Caucus" types grow by a lot, the chances go up. A lot of more mainstream Republicans will have a hard time supporting a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt without something solid to go on.

The funny thing about this is that Trump, unlike Hillary, is very likely to actually end up in a courtroom in the near future over the Trump University debacle.


MMCJawa wrote:
The funny thing about this is that Trump, unlike Hillary, is very likely to actually end up in a courtroom in the near future over the Trump University debacle.

Only because the judge is Mexican* and thus hates Trump because of the Wall.

*Not really Mexican, but descended from Mexicans.


Hitdice wrote:

I'm not saying you're wrong BNW, but given the reaction to Merrick Garland's nomination, I think that's more on congress than the democratic president.

oh definitely not placing the blame for that dysfunction on the white house. Just because two people are fighting doesn't mean they're equally at fault.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
A lot of more mainstream Republicans will have a hard time supporting a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt without something solid to go on.

Take another look at their voters. They were chanting, "lock her up", at the GOP convention whenever Clinton's name was mentioned. So far as the vast majority of Republicans are concerned, based on right wing media fiction, Hillary Clinton has already been 'proven guilty' of treason. If she is elected and their GOP representatives don't impeach her the base will never be able to accept it.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Sometimes, I wish we had Australia's Preferential Voting System. I don't know that it would solve everything, but it might at least help.

There are advantages, but Australia also has compulsory voting - which is foolish. People shouldn't vote for issues which they haven't done their homework on. We get enough of people voting based upon 3 second slogans rather than actual issues (on both sides) I don't want to exacerbate it. (I know that I don't generally vote for every post/issue to avoid doing that.)

Squeakmaan wrote:
While I might disagree that voting 3rd party is throwing your vote in the trash (Not that Libertarian and Green Party aren't both trash parties, seriously they're crazy-town) I feel that a vote for a 3rd party is a decent use of a vote, it's not gonna change anything, but i still think it's useful because one day there might be a 3rd party that isn't trash.

Really - the whole two party system is due to having a presidential office. There are advantages of having a President vs Prime Minister, but the two party system is a major disadvantage. Without it, the US would probably have at least 5-6 parties scattered across the country. I mean, Republicans from Ohio aren't much like Republicans from Texas, and Democrats from New England aren't much like Democrats from Illinois. They're mostly just allied to have a shot at the big nationwide position.


Charon's Little helper wrote:
Really - the whole two party system is due to having a presidential office.

no, it's from having direct representation and a winner take all system in an era of horses combine with a national communications system that makes organizing a national party possible.

if you have half the votes you win automatically drops to get half of the votes. If you have half the votes and someone wants to fight you, they HAVE to get the other half of the votes to even have a chance.

The two party system can't go away without heavy constitutional ammendments. We have to make the system better because it's not going anywhere


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
A lot of more mainstream Republicans will have a hard time supporting a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt without something solid to go on.
Take another look at their voters. They were chanting, "lock her up", at the GOP convention whenever Clinton's name was mentioned. So far as the vast majority of Republicans are concerned, based on right wing media fiction, Hillary Clinton has already been 'proven guilty' of treason. If she is elected and their GOP representatives don't impeach her the base will never be able to accept it.

Possible. Depends on how many Representatives think their support depends only on the hard-core base and on how much they think they'll lose based on slow walking it with more investigations and hearing vs how much they think they'll lose with a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt.

If Trump loses big, will catering to his most rabid supporters really be Paul Ryan's first move?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.

I'm one. In my state caucus I voted for her over Sanders.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Sometimes, I wish we had Australia's Preferential Voting System. I don't know that it would solve everything, but it might at least help.
There are advantages, but Australia also has compulsory voting - which is foolish. People shouldn't vote for issues which they haven't done their homework on. We get enough of people voting based upon 3 second slogans rather than actual issues (on both sides) I don't want to exacerbate it. (I know that I don't generally vote for every post/issue to avoid doing that.)

Does non-compulsory voting prevent people from voting on issues they know nothing about?


There have been multiple times in US history where there were multiple parties at play. Over time the two majority parties have assiduously cemented their control over the reigns of power, making it incredibly difficult/nearly impossible for other parties to get a foot in the door.

As has been previously noted and recently demonstrated, it is far easier to co-opt either party from within.

Neither party is going to propose such amendments, sadly, which leaves it up to a 3rd party administration to propose or have a co-operative person in Congress propose. Such proposals will probably be left to languish in procedural gobbledegook, but it gives the Oval Office a bludgeon with which to hammer Congress for a few years.

Those disillusioned with the majority parties have to realize that while it is near-certain either of the two tickets will win, they don't have to win easily. Enough popular votes for minor party candidates will get the majority parties' attention. Make them earn that win, even in solidly "red" or "blue" states.

Problem is that few are willing to admit voting in such a manner, fearing that their votes are 'thrown away'. They're not. Talk to your friends, neighbors, co-workers (be careful here of course!) and family about it. This can be a snowball effect.

If you've had enough, spend some free time talking about it as opportunity presents as a form of 'campaigning lite'. The two-party system remains in place only so long as people permit it.


thejeff wrote:
If Trump loses big, will catering to his most rabid supporters really be Paul Ryan's first move?

I doubt that Ryan would do so. He seems more pragmatic than that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Shrugs]

Belulzebub, would you like to be my new politroll thread friend?

Friend? Don't you mean. . . . . (Dramatic pause) . . . . Comrade?

I'll see myself out.

Liberty's Edge

Turin the Mad wrote:
There have been multiple times in US history where there were multiple parties at play.

No, there have not. Due to how our voting works there have always only been two parties of consequence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Sometimes, I wish we had Australia's Preferential Voting System. I don't know that it would solve everything, but it might at least help.
There are advantages, but Australia also has compulsory voting - which is foolish. People shouldn't vote for issues which they haven't done their homework on. We get enough of people voting based upon 3 second slogans rather than actual issues (on both sides) I don't want to exacerbate it. (I know that I don't generally vote for every post/issue to avoid doing that.)
Does non-compulsory voting prevent people from voting on issues they know nothing about?

Partially. People are lazy in general and there are two hurdles to get over.

Registering.
Actually voting.

And people that find those two actions difficult are least likely to be informed in their voting if given a free sign up.

Also, when the candidates don't know what they are talking about does it even matter when the voters don't? As a relatively benign example, take Obama's criticism of Guantanamo. To paraphrase, "If the president can say, 'build me a Guantanamo' he can just as easily say, 'close it down'". Aaaannd 8 years later, yep, Guantanamo still open for business. eye-roll


thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
A lot of more mainstream Republicans will have a hard time supporting a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt without something solid to go on.
Take another look at their voters. They were chanting, "lock her up", at the GOP convention whenever Clinton's name was mentioned. So far as the vast majority of Republicans are concerned, based on right wing media fiction, Hillary Clinton has already been 'proven guilty' of treason. If she is elected and their GOP representatives don't impeach her the base will never be able to accept it.

Possible. Depends on how many Representatives think their support depends only on the hard-core base and on how much they think they'll lose based on slow walking it with more investigations and hearing vs how much they think they'll lose with a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt.

If Trump loses big, will catering to his most rabid supporters really be Paul Ryan's first move?

The voter base pushing Trump seems to have a lot of overlap and shared goals as the Tea Party base. If that base still maintains a large degree of influence over congress Paul Ryan may have trouble pushing the rest of the party in a different direction.

Of course if the Republicans also do poorly in non-presidential elections than Ryan will have a lot more room to maneuver and rebradn the party


MMCJawa wrote:


Of course if the Republicans also do poorly in non-presidential elections than Ryan will have a lot more room to maneuver and rebradn the party

Or the republicans Do badly in moderate areas, leaving the tea party with a heavier majority within the republican party


Krensky wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
There have been multiple times in US history where there were multiple parties at play.
No, there have not. Due to how our voting works there have always only been two parties of consequence.

This is incorrect. Just one example.

Unless 'of consequence' is meant to say 'winning a Presidential election'. ;)


So, I know that us left-wingers have pretty much overrun the RNC thread. Should we maybe leave this one to the conservatives, just to be fair? ;D


Turin the Mad wrote:


Unless 'of consequence' is meant to say 'winning a Presidential election'. ;)

Or having any kind of measurable impact on the government. When's the last time that happened? When the whig party collapsed into the republicans , ie, an independent party became the dependent party.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
There have been multiple times in US history where there were multiple parties at play.
No, there have not. Due to how our voting works there have always only been two parties of consequence.

This is incorrect. Just one example.

Unless 'of consequence' is meant to say 'winning a Presidential election'. ;)

Winning a Presidential election. Holding a majority in either the House or Senate - or even a significant minority. Winning governorships - there have actually been a few governors in the past. Often Independent, which isn't quite the same.

Something other than merely existing. If your thesis is that there used to be multiple parties at play but there aren't now, then there has to be something that distinguishes them. Multiple parties exist now. They're just not capable of holding any real power.

If you've got counter-examples, tell us which parties and when.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We're only going to see meaningful third-party support by voting in small elections and building up greater advocacy to achieve proper electoral reform.

I would never vote for a third-party presidential candidate, but a third-party congressperson? Maybe.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

We're only going to see meaningful third-party support by voting in small elections and building up greater advocacy to achieve proper electoral reform.

I would never vote for a third-party presidential candidate, but a third-party congressperson? Maybe.

It's at least theoretically viable in what are basically one-party seats. If your district is so red (or so blue) that the other major party can't compete, then challenging a Republican candidate with a Libertarian or Constitutional (or a Democrat with a Green) could be feasible. Essentially your local district can just have two different major parties.

In general, even in those cases, I think you're still better off challenging in the primary, but there are cases where the larger electorate of the general gives you a better chance.


I'm mainly just trying to get the Democrats to move, yeah. Which is part of what made this year so ungodly frustrating.

Liberty's Edge

Turin the Mad wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
There have been multiple times in US history where there were multiple parties at play.
No, there have not. Due to how our voting works there have always only been two parties of consequence.

This is incorrect. Just one example.

Unless 'of consequence' is meant to say 'winning a Presidential election'. ;)

You do realize that the article you linked proves my point, not yours?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.

Yes, am one.

51 to 100 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Philadelphia DNC 2016 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.