The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Ralin]

See, I think it would be better for our democracy overall if more people were reasonably well informed about policy that affects their lives.

I don't think he disagrees. His definition of 'reasonably well informed' is just a good deal looser than yours.

[maraxus2]

See, I think it would be better for our democracy overall if more people were reasonably well informed about policy that affects their lives.

I don't think he disagrees. His definition of 'reasonably well informed' is just a good deal looser than yours.

Exactly. I generally think that our society should be more free of humbug. It seems to me that a lot of voters engage in humbug, mainly by doing "research" into "the issues." In reality, the vast majority of voters have, at best, a surface understanding of whatever the issue of the day happens to be, but there's still enormous pressure for people to do their own research. Granted, this isn't normally a big deal - nobody really gives a shit if you do your homework before voting or not - but it's still makes people feel bad for no reason.

Fortunately, our political system does not require nuanced policy analysis in order to function properly. That's what our representatives are for. In fact, the votes that DO require some degree of forethought and research, like states with the Initiative/Referendum system, are not particularly well-run or well-governed.

It seems to me that one, admittedly minor, change that could make American politics work better is if we all voted pretty much straight-ticket. I consider myself fairly educated on politics, and policy to a lesser extent, but I totally rely on slate cards when I actually go to cast my ballot. This strikes me as the right kind of thing to do. People ought to figure out their world-view, then decide which of the two major parties (or others, no judgment) best conforms with that world view. Then they should cast a straight party ticket.

I know this sounds absolutely crazy in this day and age, but I genuinely believe that we'd be better off if we had more partisanship rather than less. We'd also be a lot better off if we let political parties actually exercise control once they win power, but that's a conversation for another day.

[Ralin]

The idea has merit, honestly. Most people aren't going to be heavily involved in the political process and settling on broad principals like "gay people should not be subjected to violence and discrimination because of their sexuality" is generally enough to decide who or what you should vote for. There are exceptions where you need to understand nuance more than that to make a good choice and there will always be people who are experts on a subject, but overall that sounds workable.

[bilateralrope]

It seems to me that one, admittedly minor, change that could make American politics work better is if we all voted pretty much straight-ticket. I consider myself fairly educated on politics, and policy to a lesser extent, but I totally rely on slate cards when I actually go to cast my ballot. This strikes me as the right kind of thing to do. People ought to figure out their world-view, then decide which of the two major parties (or others, no judgment) best conforms with that world view. Then they should cast a straight party ticket.

I know this sounds absolutely crazy in this day and age, but I genuinely believe that we'd be better off if we had more partisanship rather than less. We'd also be a lot better off if we let political parties actually exercise control once they win power, but that's a conversation for another day.

It's not a crazy idea. I view proportional representation systems as being more democratic than systems that divide the country into regions then have people vote in a person for that region.

[maraxus2]

It seems to me that one, admittedly minor, change that could make American politics work better is if we all voted pretty much straight-ticket. I consider myself fairly educated on politics, and policy to a lesser extent, but I totally rely on slate cards when I actually go to cast my ballot. This strikes me as the right kind of thing to do. People ought to figure out their world-view, then decide which of the two major parties (or others, no judgment) best conforms with that world view. Then they should cast a straight party ticket.

I know this sounds absolutely crazy in this day and age, but I genuinely believe that we'd be better off if we had more partisanship rather than less. We'd also be a lot better off if we let political parties actually exercise control once they win power, but that's a conversation for another day.

It's not a crazy idea. I view proportional representation systems as being more democratic than systems that divide the country into regions then have people vote in a person for that region.

I don't disagree. I don't think proportional representation would be appropriate out here, just because the states have more power than provinces in a lot of proportional vote countries.

Basically I envision this; a political party wins a mandate from an election. The party then has unencumbered opportunities to pursue policies it thinks is good and/or popular. The party then gets to run for re-election based on those policies and outcomes.

The essential problem that exists in the Federal system is that the party in power doesn't have the ability to make policy without lots of structural weak points. It is crazy that we needed 60 votes for Obama's legislation. The American public very clearly gave a mandate to the Democrats in 2008. The fact that it took so much effort to get legislation out of Congress and Obama is nuts. The Democrats should have been given an unencumbered opportunity to enact their policies, rather than have to bicker with the GOP over 60 votes.

The same should be true for the Republicans. The GOP should have had a shot at privatizing social security in 2004. They should have a shot at privatizing Medicare and Medicaid now, if that's what people vote for. Elections should have consequences, and elections don't necessarily have consequences in the United States right now.

[bilateralrope]

I don't disagree. I don't think proportional representation would be appropriate out here, just because the states have more power than provinces in a lot of proportional vote countries.

That can be worked with. Have proportional representation for national government with the same powers that the national government has now. Things it can't do now it still wouldn't be able to do under proportional representation.

I remember reading that a lot of the FPP structure is written into the constitution, which is a major hurdle to overcome in implementing it. Especially with both Democrats and Republicans likely to lose out in favour of third parties under a proportional system, which means they won't want it.

Basically I envision this; a political party wins a mandate from an election. The party then has unencumbered opportunities to pursue policies it thinks is good and/or popular. The party then gets to run for re-election based on those policies and outcomes.

I prefer that no party has an outright majority. That means that for anything to pass, there needs to be negotiation between parties until they reach a compromise with sufficient support (50% + 1 of the seats supporting it). Maybe the party in government is in that group, maybe it isn't. But each party is doing their best to get their agenda passed. Sometimes that means compromising one part of their agenda to get a more important part through, sometimes that means agreeing to support an issue they don't care about in exchange for support of their agenda later on.

The American public very clearly gave a mandate to the Democrats in 2008.

Did they really ?
Yes, they voted for Obama. But they also voted for each member of congress and each member of the senate. The numbers of Republicans and Semocrats elected doesn't tell the full story either because of the problem of telling the difference between people who voted for the person in a seat and people voting for the party that person represents. Voting for the person gives the person mandate to vote how they think is best when their party disagrees, but voting for the party means that they should stick to the parties policies.

[Flagg]

Honestly if I could change one and only one thing in how we elect Presidents I'd get rid of the electoral college and the popular vote would decide who gets elected. That way my WA vote counts as much as my FL vote did. Because as it is now people in a few important states (based on the electoral college) get to decide who the next POTUS will be and the rest of us might as well draw ejaculating dicks in the "write in" portion of the ballot.

[maraxus2]

That can be worked with. Have proportional representation for national government with the same powers that the national government has now. Things it can't do now it still wouldn't be able to do under proportional representation.

I remember reading that a lot of the FPP structure is written into the constitution, which is a major hurdle to overcome in implementing it. Especially with both Democrats and Republicans likely to lose out in favour of third parties under a proportional system, which means they won't want it.

That could work. I'm not very familiar with systems that have both proportional representation and federalism, so I can't say precisely how well that would work here in the States. Maybe Thanas could clarify, since IIRC Germany has a federal system and proportional representation.

I prefer that no party has an outright majority. That means that for anything to pass, there needs to be negotiation between parties until they reach a compromise with sufficient support (50% + 1 of the seats supporting it). Maybe the party in government is in that group, maybe it isn't. But each party is doing their best to get their agenda passed. Sometimes that means compromising one part of their agenda to get a more important part through, sometimes that means agreeing to support an issue they don't care about in exchange for support of their agenda later on.

We kind of already do that in Congress and the state legislatures, they're just intra-party fights, not inter-party. I do support enabling the legislature to make logrolling bargains wherever possible, and that sort of thing works much better in a parliamentary system rather than the presidential-congressional system that we have. Given the state of small parties in the US, I'd much prefer that political bargaining takes place within one of the two parties. They're able to mobilize lots of resources to enact their policies, something that wouldn't be possible with smaller parties like the Greens or Libertarians.

Also unlike a lot of other countries, the US doesn't really have a tradition of having a national self-sustaining third party. They tend to crop up when one or both major parties ignores a particularly sensitive issue. Once that issue loses salience, the third party tends to melt into the background again. This doesn't strike me as a function of the two-party system per se.

Did they really ?
Yes, they voted for Obama. But they also voted for each member of congress and each member of the senate. The numbers of Republicans and Semocrats elected doesn't tell the full story either because of the problem of telling the difference between people who voted for the person in a seat and people voting for the party that person represents. Voting for the person gives the person mandate to vote how they think is best when their party disagrees, but voting for the party means that they should stick to the parties policies.

I'd say they really did. The Democrats held roughly 60% of the Senate, House, and Gubernatorial seats, as well as total control over 27 state legislatures and split control in eight more. This came as a direct result of Obama's landslide victory in the Presidential election.

I'd agree that there were quite a few Democrats who held seats that no national Democrat had any right to win, but there were far more people who got washed in with the Obama tide. Sometimes those new MoCs were great campaigners, but a lot of them were pieces of political driftwood who promptly lost their re-election campaigns without Obama at the top of the ticket. It is difficult to parse, but it's becoming less so as voters stop ticket-splitting.

Honestly if I could change one and only one thing in how we elect Presidents I'd get rid of the electoral college and the popular vote would decide who gets elected. That way my WA vote counts as much as my FL vote did. Because as it is now people in a few important states (based on the electoral college) get to decide who the next POTUS will be and the rest of us might as well draw ejaculating dicks in the "write in" portion of the ballot.

Agreed.

My idealized system for the Feds is basically as follows:
1. Removing the electoral college and deciding presidential elections based on pure popular vote totals.
2. Drastically curtailing the Senate's power by eliminating the filibuster and Senate "holds" to cut down on the political chicanery that comes out of that august body
2b. Failing that, eliminating the Senate altogether.
3. Doubling the size of the House of Representatives from 435 to 870 Reps, bringing Congressional representation down to the local level.
3b. Instituting a national non-partisan redistricting commission, similar to what we have here in California. Have that redistricting commission focus on: 1. protecting minority voting rights and minority-majority district, 2. maximizing "communities of interests" within districts (e.g. economic/political/cultural similarities should take precedence over City/County boundaries), 3. maintaining equal populations between the districts.
4. Instituting a federally-regulated campaign finance system

The idea is to have elections produce clear-cut outcomes that gives the winning party an opportunity to govern unencumbered, enact their policy agenda, and then run for re-election based on those outcomes. This is essentially how it works in most of the States. Sometimes it works out well (Utah, California, and Wyoming all have well-run states with popular incumbent Governors), and sometimes it doesn't work out so well (Kansas is basically an outhouse fire ans Sam Brownback is the least popular governor in the entire country).

But people should absolutely not be forced to go through this Lucy-and-the-football routine that Obama experienced in 2009-10. The public gave him and the Democratic Party a pretty solid mandate, yet they passed legislation like they were pulling teeth. This is not good for the US' long-term political stability.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sigh...

This is just... sad.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... -candidate

Activist Cornel West is endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein after previously backing Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid.

“This November, we need change,” he wrote Thursday in an op-ed for The Guardian. "Yet we are tied in a choice between [Donald] Trump, who would be a neo-fascist catastrophe, and [Hillary] Clinton, a neo-liberal disaster."


West then said he would back Stein over the alternatives.
“I am with her – the only progressive woman in the race – because we’ve got to get beyond this lock-jaw situation,” added West, a member of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) platform drafting committee.

West said he could not in good conscience follow Sanders’s lead in supporting Clinton’s campaign earlier this week.

“I have a deep love for my brother Bernie Sanders, but I disagree with him on Hillary Clinton,” he said of the independent Vermont senator.

“I don’t think she would be an ‘outstanding president,’” West added of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “Her militarism makes the world a less safe place.”

West added the presidency of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s husband, is responsible for many of the nation’s problems today.

“Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools and Wall Street domination,” he said.

“There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the right-wing populism that we’re seeing now in the country. And we think she’s going to come to the rescue? That’s not going to happen.”

Stein on Thursday celebrated West’s endorsement by thanking the liberal academic for his blessing on Twitter.

Sanders on Tuesday endorsed Clinton in an event intended to rally Democrats against Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

“Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that,” he said in Portsmouth, N.H.

“She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

I knew their was a certain rabid Bernie or Bust crowd prepared to try their hardest to sink the country if they didn't get everything they want, but would have hoped that they would mostly be limited to a few fringe wankers on the internet, not anyone of actually notability and influence.

As of now, I have no choice but to conclude that Cornell West is a fool and a traitor.

Edit: For some reason, whenever I link to the Hill from this forum, it gives me a warning that site's security certificate is invalid. Don't know why, since it causes me no problems except when I link from this forum.

[maraxus2]

Sigh...

This is just... sad.

I knew their was a certain rabid Bernie or Bust crowd prepared to try their hardest to sink the country if they didn't get everything they want, but would have hoped that they would mostly be limited to a few fringe wankers on the internet, not anyone of actually notability and influence.

As of now, I have no choice but to conclude that Cornell West is a fool and a traitor.

Edit: For some reason, whenever I link to the Hill from this forum, it gives me a warning that site's security certificate is invalid. Don't know why, since it causes me no problems except when I link from this forum.

It's almost like he was participating in bad faith.

[Grumman]

As of now, I have no choice but to conclude that Cornell West is a fool and a traitor.

A "traitor"? Really? Why would you believe that it is treason for an opponent of Hillary Clinton to continue being an opponent of Hillary Clinton?

Edit: For some reason, whenever I link to the Hill from this forum, it gives me a warning that site's security certificate is invalid. Don't know why, since it causes me no problems except when I link from this forum.

Do you usually use "http://" and not "https://" to visit the website? My assumption would be that The Hill is simply not set up for secure viewing, so when you try and it responds with "Durr... what's a security certificate?" your browser throws up this warning.

[Patroklos]

As of now, I have no choice but to conclude that Cornell West is a fool and a traitor.

I guess you lose the right to call others fascists now?

[Ralin]

A "traitor"? Really? Why would you believe that it is treason for an opponent of Hillary Clinton to continue being an opponent of Hillary Clinton?

I would say he means a traitor to Sanders and the cause he represents, but frankly he's already proven he doesn't know what the word 'treason' means. So no benefit of the doubt.

[maraxus2]

A "traitor"? Really? Why would you believe that it is treason for an opponent of Hillary Clinton to continue being an opponent of Hillary Clinton?

You don't think it's untoward for a member of the Dem platform committee to endorse someone other than the Democratic nominee?

[Flagg]

Sigh...

This is just... sad.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... -candidate

Activist Cornel West is endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein after previously backing Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid.

“This November, we need change,” he wrote Thursday in an op-ed for The Guardian. "Yet we are tied in a choice between [Donald] Trump, who would be a neo-fascist catastrophe, and [Hillary] Clinton, a neo-liberal disaster."


West then said he would back Stein over the alternatives.
“I am with her – the only progressive woman in the race – because we’ve got to get beyond this lock-jaw situation,” added West, a member of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) platform drafting committee.

West said he could not in good conscience follow Sanders’s lead in supporting Clinton’s campaign earlier this week.

“I have a deep love for my brother Bernie Sanders, but I disagree with him on Hillary Clinton,” he said of the independent Vermont senator.

“I don’t think she would be an ‘outstanding president,’” West added of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “Her militarism makes the world a less safe place.”

West added the presidency of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s husband, is responsible for many of the nation’s problems today.

“Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools and Wall Street domination,” he said.

“There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the right-wing populism that we’re seeing now in the country. And we think she’s going to come to the rescue? That’s not going to happen.”

Stein on Thursday celebrated West’s endorsement by thanking the liberal academic for his blessing on Twitter.

Sanders on Tuesday endorsed Clinton in an event intended to rally Democrats against Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

“Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that,” he said in Portsmouth, N.H.

“She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

I knew their was a certain rabid Bernie or Bust crowd prepared to try their hardest to sink the country if they didn't get everything they want, but would have hoped that they would mostly be limited to a few fringe wankers on the internet, not anyone of actually notability and influence.

As of now, I have no choice but to conclude that Cornell West is a fool and a traitor.

Edit: For some reason, whenever I link to the Hill from this forum, it gives me a warning that site's security certificate is invalid. Don't know why, since it causes me no problems except when I link from this forum.

So he'd rather endorse someone who has antivaxxer leanings who believes in homeopathy because he's butthurt Grandpa Simpson got trounced in the primary? No skin off my balls. But I wouldn't say he's a traitor. More like "dishonest douchebag".

[The Romulan Republic]

A "traitor"? Really? Why would you believe that it is treason for an opponent of Hillary Clinton to continue being an opponent of Hillary Clinton?

I would say he means a traitor to Sanders and the cause he represents,

No shit.

but frankly he's already proven he doesn't know what the word 'treason' means. So no benefit of the doubt.

I have long been aware that some people on this board, because I have said things they disagree with or find offensive in the past, evidently feel that it is okay to blatantly misrepresent me and my positions in future disagreements.

Funny, I thought this was supposed to be a place for honest debate.

"traitor" can have a number of meanings beyond literally committing the crime of treason. Colloquially, it can be and is applied to any situation where one can be said to have betrayed something, be it a person, ideal, organization, cause, etc.

I am clearly not alleging that Cornell West has committed the crime of treason, because contrary to your snide attempt at misrepresentation, I know perfectly well what treason legally is in the Constitution and that it would be beyond absurd to say that this qualifies. And only knee-jerk hostility/bias or dishonesty would lead you to assume that out of all possible meanings, that was my intent.

When I use the word "traitor", I am using it in the colloquial sense, to say that West is a traitor to the Sanders campaign and to progressive ideals. I believe that an apt description of his actions here. Whatever his motivations, however well-intentioned he may be, he has stabbed Senator Sanders in the back and is pursuing a course of action that has only two plausible outcomes- accomplishing nothing, or making Trump President and throwing away everything progressives have achieved in this election, and everything they believe in.

As of now, I have no choice but to conclude that Cornell West is a fool and a traitor.

I guess you lose the right to call others fascists now?

Should I assume that you are saying I have legally lost my right to freely express my opinion, in violation of the First Amendment? It would have as much validity as assuming that I was accusing Cornell West of committing treason.

Edit: I'd also like to apologize for going somewhat off-topic in this manner. To be honest, the notion that I am accusing Cornell West of committing the crime of treason, given the context, is so utterly laughable that I feel somewhat embarrassed even addressing it, and half think its not worth even dignifying with a reply. However, I felt it necessary to respond to a grotesque misrepresentation of me and my position. I have no intention whatsoever of continuing this discussion, and hope (most likely in vain) that others will not insist on banging their heads against this particular brick wall.

[Ralin]

I am clearly not alleging that Cornell West has committed the crime of treason,

I didn't say you did. I was giving an example of your track record of ignorance and histrionics about this sort of thing.

because contrary to your snide attempt at misrepresentation, I know perfectly well what treason legally is in the Constitution

"You know, I really believe in freedom of speech, but tell me again why we can't arrest this shit for inciting violence, terrorism, and treason?"

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

No, you don't. Or at least you didn't last week.

[The Romulan Republic]

As I acknowledged at the time, I believe I was being somewhat facetious, venting.

Allow me to quote another post on the same topic:

You know, I really believe in freedom of speech, but tell me again why we can't arrest this shit for inciting violence, terrorism, and treason?

Because things like "DECLARED WAR ON X" are very common rhetorical devices and widely understood to not be meant literally. And he specifically said he wasn't calling for violence. Meaning that people who aren't really stupid or looking to grind axes can clearly understand that what he said was not illegal.

Seriously, 'treason'?

I was under the impression that specifically saying he wasn't calling for violence was some ass-covering after people called out his original comments. Which also included very threatening comments directed at Obama and Black Lives Matter, saying that real America was coming to get them. As I posted.

And yes, I know why they can't arrest him. But its frustrating nonetheless. Because I think its pretty damn clear that his rhetoric has the potential to incite violence, and may very well have been intended to.

Which you know damn well, because the post in question was addressed to you.

I was expressing my frustration at the way in which slimy douchebags can skirt the letter of the law while flagrantly violating its spirit. As I said, I know perfectly well why we can't actually arrest people for that shit.

[Grumman]

When I use the word "traitor", I am using it in the colloquial sense, to say that West is a traitor to the Sanders campaign and to progressive ideals. I believe that an apt description of his actions here.

The Sanders campaign to do what? The purpose of the Sanders campaign he supported was not to get Hillary Clinton elected President. He owes no allegiance to Hillary Clinton just because the candidate he supported explicitly because he was an alternative to an establishment Democrat in bed with Wall Street is now endorsing her.

Would you call Republicans who voted against Trump traitors just because they don't blindly follow their candidates in endorsing that idiot after they lost?

[The Romulan Republic]

Clinton pledges to put forward a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United within 30 days of becoming President:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ns-united/

ST. LOUIS — Hillary Clinton will call for a constitutional amendment to "overturn Citizens United" in her first 30 days as president and plans to make that announcement today to progressive activists at the annual Netroots Nation conference.

"I will also appoint Supreme Court justices who understand that this decision was a disaster for our democracy," Clinton will say in a video message, scheduled to run near the end of today's final keynote session. "I will fight for other progressive reforms, including small-dollar matching and disclosure requirements. I hope some of the brilliant minds in this room will seek out cases to challenge Citizens United in the courts."



The Daily Trail newsletter
A daily briefing of what's happening on the campaign trail.
Sign up
In a statement accompanying the announcement, Clinton pledges to promote Securities and Exchange Commission "rulemaking requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all political spending to their shareholders" and to sign an "executive order requiring federal government contractors to fully disclose all political spending." She has discussed versions of those ideas on the campaign trail, but the forum of Netroots Nation — a conference in its 11th year that she visited in person only once — was a striking place to make the statement.

Clinton's campaign previewed the announcement for some progressive groups, which gave it their seal of approval. "Hillary Clinton's commitment to overturning Citizens United, and her other systemic proposals like public financing of congressional elections, are key to improving our chances of victory on every other issue," said Marissa Barrow, a spokeswoman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Since 2010, the Citizens United decision has become a metonym for a series of conservative Supreme Court decisions that unwound campaign finance regulations. Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass disclosure measures, as well as an amendment to the Constitution, intended to reverse the decisions. Republicans, often led by Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), have characterized those efforts as attacks on the First Amendment.

Even though the case was fought over an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) became its most prominent critic in the 2016 primaries. He never finished a speech without mentioning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, blaming it for the money gushing into politics, and pledging to appoint a Supreme Court that would undo it.

"I know that many of the people in this room supported Sen. Sanders in the primary," Clinton will tell Netroots activists in the video, as footage of the senator and his wife, Jane, a popular campaign surrogate, plays behind her. "I'm looking forward to hearing from you, learning from you, and working with you."

Excellent news, presuming she follows through.

Politically, it also should give progressives something more to get behind, and further take the wind out of the sails of the Bernie or Busters.

[The Romulan Republic]

When I use the word "traitor", I am using it in the colloquial sense, to say that West is a traitor to the Sanders campaign and to progressive ideals. I believe that an apt description of his actions here.

The Sanders campaign to do what? The purpose of the Sanders campaign he supported was not to get Hillary Clinton elected President. He owes no allegiance to Hillary Clinton just because the candidate he supported explicitly because he was an alternative to an establishment Democrat in bed with Wall Street is now endorsing her.

Would you call Republicans who voted against Trump traitors just because they don't blindly follow their candidates in endorsing that idiot after they lost?

Granted, just because someone supports Sanders for President does not mean they are obliged to support Clinton after Bernie endorsed her.

But let's look at this realistically. Jill Stein will not be President. Jill Stein can do absolutely nothing for progressive ideals other than blabber in relative obscurity and split the anti-Trump vote. If she does end up helping to make Trump President, it will be one of the worst losses progressivism has ever suffered, and the establishment will likely blame the disaster, at least in part, on progressives, and on Sanders and his supporters. Yet she has attempted to manipulate and exploit bitter, angry, and frustrated Sanders supporters into backing her campaign against their own interests.

There is nothing whatsoever to gain from supporting Jill Stein, other than spite-driven sabotage or the chance to pat yourself on the back for your uncompromising ideological purity while the world collapses around you.

Cornell West was not merely some random voter on the street either. He was a prominent backer of Sanders and a Sanders delegate to the Democratic convention. And now he is actively working to sabotage everything Bernie Sanders has fought for and won on the platform. He is working against the best interests of progressives.

That is the cause of my anger and sense of betrayal.

He has, of course, every right to speak and vote his conscience. But that does not mean that he is making the right choice here.

Edit: Really, words can hardly describe my dislike for Stein and her campaign to be Nader 2.0, only worse. I would honestly prefer people do write-in votes than vote for her.

[maraxus2]

The Sanders campaign to do what? The purpose of the Sanders campaign he supported was not to get Hillary Clinton elected President. He owes no allegiance to Hillary Clinton just because the candidate he supported explicitly because he was an alternative to an establishment Democrat in bed with Wall Street is now endorsing her.

Would you call Republicans who voted against Trump traitors just because they don't blindly follow their candidates in endorsing that idiot after they lost?

If West has any allegiance to the progressive movement, he should be supporting Clinton. Jill Stein cannot win the Presidency, full stop. With the ballot access she has right now (24 states with 1 write-in option and 1 pending lawsuit), Stein would need to win every state the Democrats have won in the last six elections plus Texas, Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia (or some similar combination of other states) in order to get to 270 EVs. She is not going to do that. She might, however, siphon left-leaning votes off of Clinton in key states. That's why she's on the ballot in Georgia this year.

The progressive movement cannot accomplish much substantive change without strong executive support from the White House. We learned this lesson rather painfully under Dubya's presidency, and I'd have hoped that we would not need to relearn this lesson now that Trump is the nominee. So the matter is really quite simple; if you're a progressive voter, you must vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the only left-leaning candidate with a shot at winning the election, and that is the most important thing.

West, to my eyes at least, is demonstrating that he's not really about progressivism except to the extent that it heightens his personal profile as an activist. Whether he sincerely believes the things he is saying, I'm not fully qualified to say. He is, though, significantly marginalizing himself from the only left-leaning political organization in the country. He's sending a message to the Dems, and it's not "Listen to us or we'll bolt to the Greens." Rather, it's more "Do not trust Cornel West with positions of influence. He will piss in your eye and expect you to thank him."

[maraxus2]

Edit: Really, words can hardly describe my dislike for Stein and her campaign to be Nader 2.0, only worse. I would honestly prefer people do write-in votes than vote for her.

We finally agree on something. I hope Gruuman goes through with my suggestion to just write himself in on his ballot. That way he can be 100% sure he's voting for a candidate who supports his own ideals.

Excellent news, presuming she follows through.

Politically, it also should give progressives something more to get behind, and further take the wind out of the sails of the Bernie or Busters.

I think there are lots of reasons to think that she will, although obviously this amendment isn't going to go anywhere. This is a pretty bog-standard liberal position, which makes sense because Clinton is basically a bog-standard liberal herself.

Wouldn't give two much credance to the Bernie or Bust people though. At this point, BoB is basically just H.A. Goodman yelling into the twitter void and a couple of jerk-off "writers" on HuffPo trying to scratch out a living. They're not a real - or even significant - movement.

[Flagg]

POTUS plays no part in Amending the constitution anymore than I do, so that was a really dumb thing to say on her part.

[The Romulan Republic]

While the President cannot directly amend the Constitution themselves, the President obviously wields great influence and can help rally support for legislation. See the role Lincoln played in mobilizing support for Amendment 13, for example.

Of course, it could backfire on her post-election if she can't actually deliver said amendment (which would require some really major Democratic victories down ballot, I suspect). So I expect that we'll likely hear a lot of people complaining about how she betrayed this promise down the line, whatever her intent is.

However, her primary purpose is probably to get as much progressive turnout in the election as possible, and I dare say it will help with that. And even slightly increasing turnout from progressives could be the difference between winning and losing some close states.