American politics confuses me. I'm not asking this question in /pol/ because all I'll get is a bunch of fashy propaganda, but if the Rasmussen poll shows Trump with a lead over Clinton but not Sanders, why don't the Dems run Sanders as their candidate to cinch the victory? Does the establishment hate him that much? American politics is confusing.
>>17104566
Because Sanders is honestly an idiot who'd do almost as much damage as Trump if he became President. And pretty much everyone can see it, except upper-middle-class college kids living in an academic bubble. Hillary isn't perfect by a long shot, but she's sane and intelligent and capable of working with others, and Sanders is none of those things
>>17104566
Because that's just one poll, whereas most other polls show Clinton beating Trump by a wide margin.
Also, the establishment can't just decide to switch candidates on a whim, candidates have to be voted on by citizens. Which is what the entire primary season is.
>>17104577
Dude seems to have pretty successfully represented Vermont for a very long time. I mean to stick around that long he has to be doing something right?
>>17104589
Can't the party line refuse to endorse a candidate tho? Idk, my country doesn't have a presidential system so we can roll party leaders whenever we choose.
>>17104566
Because socialism is a failure, specially the type Sanders is advocating for. Even the Scandinavian countries laugh at Sanders ideas.
>>17104593
If a candidate doesn't get 51% of the total delegates, it can be contested, which might actually happen with the republicans. But otherwise, for a party establishment to refuse to endorse a candidate, that candidate would have to have views that a very out-of-line with the party's. Which isn't the case here.
>>17104566
Because Clinton is not going to lose to trump. The American people don't elect the president, electors won from winning individual states do, you dont even need a national majority of votes to win. Clinton is going to beat trump in electors by a very wide margin.
>>17104593
>Dude seems to have pretty successfully represented Vermont for a very long time. I mean to stick around that long he has to be doing something right?
Not really, no. He's got a very similar reputation to Ted Cruz. Yells a lot, takes a position of moral superiority over everyone he works with, but accomplishes almost nothing. He votes against the "bad things," but he rallies nobody to his side. He's not a leader. Being a Representative or Senator is a very, very different job from being anywhere in the Executive branch.
The reason he's been able to stick to his morals and integrity for so long is because he's never actually had to be the one making any major decisions. He's been the one ARGUING for one decision or another, but he's always just been one vote in a room full of voters. He's never really had to make the tough calls. He's a backseat driver. He's spent his entire career saying "it would've all been better if everyone listened to me." But he's never learned to actually rally people to his side, to make them listen.
That's why he leans so heavily on slogans like "revolution of the people" and "not me, but US." All of his policies DEPEND on constant, active involvement from average citizens and non-politicians, because he knows damn well his policies have no support from his fellow professionals, and that won't change even if he gets elected. He's all alone up there.
>>17104589
>most other polls show Clinton beating Trump by a wide margin.
This is what delusional hillaryfags actually believe
>>17104645
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls
I'm sorry, I must be misinterpreting all the + signs next to the name "Clinton." Maybe you could clear it up for me.
>>17104566
>American politics is confusing.
Yep.
At issue is the fact that the President is not elected by popular vote, but by delegates from each state known as electors. Each state gets a number of elector equal to its bumber of Senators (always 2) plus its number of Cobgressional represebtatives (based on population, but always at least 1). Each state can pick its electors however it wants, but in current practice, each state holds an election, and its electors are bound to vote according to the results of their state's election. In other words, there is not one Presidential election, but 50 (actually 51, because Washington, DC gets electors as though it were a state even though it is not).
Because of this, each party holds its primaries in manner that (roughly) mirrors the national process, goibg state-by-state. It is thought that selecting candidates in this way better predicts how that candidate will do nationwide.
Why, then, is there still any question on the side of the Democrats? Because even though Bernie is doing better in a flat national poll, he's not doing better if you break it down like the actual election is going to go. If you do that, Hillary has an edge. But that edge is currently not clear enough to call things for her either, and so we continue to go through these polls, state by state.
>>17104676
Yes to this, except for
>even though Bernie is doing better in a flat national poll
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
I know different polls show different numbers, but these are all of the votes counted in all of the states that have already held their primary elections.
>>17104674
>biased bullshit
This is what delusional hillaryfags use as "evidence"
>>17104593
Refusing to endorse trump would DESTROY the Republican party. And he is not even against hillary so Idk where you got that from
Love how people say Trump is going to ruin the country when he's not owned by outside special interests and hates the campaign finance system and lobbyists just like Bernie. They just recite clickbait liberal shit that is spread on social media while alternate opinions are literally censored and shadowbanned.
It doesn't take /pol/ to be a fan of Trump millions of people have already voted for him and most have no idea what that is. Millions of blue collar workers are tired of losing jobs and pc bullshit shoved in their faces all day. This bullshit needs to stop. Quit playing into the narrative.
Can anyone explain to me why is trump so hated again?
He does not blab in favor of anti-science trends (like creationism, or vaccines are evil...), does not approve needless spending in wars for the benefit of big business. Comparing him to the usual republican figures he seems pretty tame and sane.
>>17104700
>>17104713
>Literally replying to nobody in this thread
>>17104700
>Refusing to endorse trump would DESTROY the Republican party. And he is not even against hillary so Idk where you got that from
No it wouldn't. most republicans will vote for their candidate regardless of who it will be (just as most democrats will). and a few months after the election this intra-party squabbling will be forgotten.
>>17104725
Did a differing opinion offend you?
I'm responding to this you uppity loser:
>Because Sanders is honestly an idiot who'd do almost as much damage as Trump if he became President. And pretty much everyone can see it,
>>17104720
His nationalistic views are perceived as racist by democrats. His lack of mouth control makes other republicans hate him.
>>17104725
>liberals
>>17104566
I'll be honest, I only like Trump because of the hypersensitivity regarding political correctness. Well, that and the fact that he's a wake up call to the republicans that their out of touch with their base and thst their base is not solely the tea party.
My $0.02
Anyways, Sanders is almost as divisive as trump. Remember that baby boomers make up the majority of voters and they don't want taxe increases because many of them are in that arbitrary 1%. However, Trump goes against the rules they've come to respect so many don't like him, plus that pc hypersensitivity. Now through Clinton into the mix. She's a familiar face and many see her as "moderate" though that's more up in the air. She is relatively moderate, Sanders, but again the Tea Party made it so both parties have to be extreme.
Cruz is Romney 1.0.1 and Kasich is pretty aight but no one knows about him so it doesn't matter.
>>17104735
You really believe that? Have you been living under a rock?
>>17104746
>many of them are in the top 1%
Do you know that there are a fuck ton more in the other 99%???
>>17104735
>a few months after the election this intra-party squabbling will be forgotten.
This primary season (and upcoming election) are going to be studied by historians for a fucking century.
>>17104725
>being this triggered
>>17104759
1)Not necessarily because older people average more income and it's rather reasonable to reach a household income +$150k in your 50s.
2) it doesn't matter how many are in the actual bracket. What matters is how many of them think they are.
>>17104759
Do you know that there is a fuck ton more power in the 1%?
>>17104746
>Remember that baby boomers make up the majority of voters and they don't want taxe increases because many of them are in that arbitrary 1%
The working class in America has always skewed conservative, because they've seen firsthand the result of Democratic tax hikes. Sanders makes it sound like he's offering the American working class a great deal, but what he'd REALLY do is make it exponentially more expensive for American businesses to hire and retain American employees.
It's one thing to argue for a raised minimum wage. But to raise the minimum wage, AND raise taxes, AND position the government in direct conflict with anyone who runs or opens a business... it means layoffs, and hiring freezes, and as usual this will hurt the poor most of all, not the one-percenters. Crack a history book on Socialist revolutions, and tell me who goes hungry every damn time.
Sanders is a fucking moron. He always has been. He was a "fashionable" Socialist in the 1960s, and even as the rest of his peers witnessed the downsides of Socialism and Communism on a global scale, Sanders never outgrew it. He's been shouting bullshit from his little corner for his entire career. He's even more a fraud than Trump, in many ways. He certainly has no qualms lying to his voters and making false promises just to tell them what they want to hear.
>>17104593
>Can't the party line refuse to endorse a candidate tho? Idk, my country doesn't have a presidential system so we can roll party leaders whenever we choose.
They can, if the voting goes to a second round, but they pledge their votes to the winner of their state's primary for the first. It's a very cryptic process that most people never learn the intricacies of. This year's primary is blowing the lid on that process…and the reaction won't be pretty.
>>17104890
>It's a very cryptic process
It's not cryptic
>that most people never learn the intricacies of
They choose not to, when the information is publicly available and taught in most schools
>This year's primary is blowing the lid on that process
The lid has always been wide open
>…and the reaction won't be pretty
You mean a bunch of un-informed dumbasses deciding to stay home and skip the election because "it's all bullshit anyway, man." They do this every four years.
>>17104902
This anon gets it.
>>17104566
Sanders appeals to a fringe group. His main base consists of, socialists, welfare leaches, anarchists,SJW's and the BLM dindu's. Would you or the majority want these kind of people to be in forefront? Socialism promises the opposite it claims to provide. It produces, poverty, misery, and tyranny.
In essence Socialism is political pyramid scheme. And most Americans recognize this.
>>17104566
a victory for your party with a candidate you don't agree with isn't necessarily a victory. I know plenty of Bern-outs who say they'll vote for Trump over Hillary purely out of spite
polls aren't necessarily accurate, hillary and trump have beaten each other in different polls, sanders and cruz have won polls of their own. candidates use them as talking points, and they can get people thinking over who they really want to throw their weight behind, but no one is convinced by them alone and they hold tenuous bearing on the results of an actual vote.
>>17104593
Vermont is a shithole. Fun fact.
>>17104925
>Raise the taxes! More money for the government!
>You know, for the working class people!
It honestly mystifies me how people eat this shit up.
>>17104925
Really anarchists supporting Sanders? Fuck You.
Clearly you don't have an understanding of what Anarchists stand for
>>17104943
>Autism Speaks
>>17104735
You mean like how Jackson getting beaten by JQA was "forgotten in a few months"? This nigga >>17104760 gets it, the 2016 primaries and general election are gonna have a YUUGE impact on American elections from this point forward.
>>17104938
Authoritarian Socialism is usually tax heavy.
If it is a Libertarian Socialist system, then the state would either be non-existent or next to non-existent. And if the state is non-existent, then their is no need for tax. And the means of production would be controlled solely by the workers.
>>17104925
They promise equality and they deliver. They just deliver equal misery rather than equal prosperity.
>>17104948
One way or another, this year spells the death of the GOP, and it's been a long fucking time coming.
It'd be cool to see a political party emerge that actually represents conservative values, instead of just bottomless greed and depthless corruption. I don't like voting Democrat, I fundamentally disagree with like 70% of Hillary's policies, but she's the only sane choice this year.
>>17104943
No one cares about anarchists save a few edgy teenagers. Anarchy is a joke and should remain as such.
>>17104943
Most "anarchists" aren't actually anarchists, they believe that under a socialist system the state magically disappears, and that the "oppression under the 1%" is the same as the state. They call actual anarchists, people who just don't want a state and think everybody should just do what they want and not hurt each other, "anarcho-capitalists" and then proceed to claim that they're not real anarchists because "the only way to end the state is to end capitalism".
Fucking morons.
>>17104955
I've always thought Libertarianism sounded nice. I like Rand Paul. If he'd stuck in the race I feel like we'd be looking at a very different election. It's clear that everyone was ready for an anti-establishment candidate this year, but why the fuck did it have to be Ted Cruz and Donald fucking Trump? Rand has real integrity, he's respectable, and he's actually TRYING to consider modern solutions to modern problems instead of just pretending he can build a time machine and take us back to post-WWII America.
>>17104943
As a matter of fact, Sanders is very popular with the anarchist. A quick google search will show that.
>>17104955
>Libertarian Socialist
nice meme
>the state would either be non-existent or next to non-existent
nice meme, I guess no bureaucracy is required to manage wealth redistribution?????
>if the state is non-existent, then their is no need for tax
>if
>And the means of production would be controlled solely by the workers.
if uneducated workers could manage a business they'd have been doing that already, and if workers became educated they'd pursue a better profession than laborer.
>but she's the only sane choice this year
hahahahaha, you can't seriously believe Hillary "women are the primary victims of war" Clinton is sane, can you?
>>17104971
>I've always thought Libertarianism sounded nice
It is, but don't be fooled into thinking "libertarian" socialism is libertarian in any way.
>If he'd stuck in the race
He had no chance, and I say this as someone who supported him. He said in one speech that we should treat jihadist prisoners humanely, because we're better than they are, but also that we should cool it on the refugees, because that's a huge security risk. Neither the GOP nor the Dems are ready for that kind of message.
>>17104992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
>>17104566
Sanders is marketing himself as an idiot to every demographic outside of naive college kids. Socialism doesn't work, and while I don't think he would stick with the schlock he's trying to push, he's ruining his reputation by associating himself with it.
>>17104992
>He said in one speech that we should treat jihadist prisoners humanely, because we're better than they are, but also that we should cool it on the refugees, because that's a huge security risk.
...I agree with both of those statements, though.
At the moment he dropped out, it seemed like he had no chance. But at that time, Donald Trump still seemed like a joke candidate, Jeb Bush seemed like a frontrunner, nobody really predicted it would end up like this.
At the very least, I feel like he could beat Ted Cruz any day of the week.
>>17104985
Maybe some support him, but it is a small minority.
>>17104966
Anarchy is the abolition of Hierarchy. And Capitalist is inherently Hierarchical. Hence why we support the removal of Capitalist structures.
>>17105020
>the abolition of Hierarchy
Hierarchy is inherent to human nature. Anarchy would not abolish hierarchy, it would just make it available to violent thugs and warlords, like you see in pretty much any human society without strong government.
You're a fucking idiot. Seriously, keep talking about your ideals. I wanna see you really try to make a legitimate argument for the way you see the world.
>>17105029
Rojava. Libertarian Socialist society, yet is mounting an extremely effective fight against Daesh
>>17105012
>we use different definitions of common terms than literally everybody else!
who thought this was a good idea?
My point about large scale worker self-management still stands. Plus, if the workers most skilled at managing certain aspects of the business inevitably rise to prominence, a "hierarchical" system as you call it has emerged on it's own.
>>17105016
>I agree with both of those statements, though
So do I, but most people have a problem with one or the other.
>>17105020
>Anarchy is the abolition of Hierarchy
"no", anarchy is literally "the absence of rule"
>>17105020
>And Capitalist is inherently Hierarchical
define capitalism, because if you're using meme definitions that no one else uses to obfuscate the discussion again we can't really go on
>>17105029
>it would just make it available to violent thugs and warlords, like you see in pretty much any human society without strong government
nah senpai, the thugs and warlords ARE strong governments. statists love to talk about how without a state, power goes to whoever has all the weapons and resources, all with a straight face. it baffles me.
>>17105034
I guess it's easy to justify your ideology when you can just label any vaguelly anarchistic society as "libertarian socialist". All that rojava is proof if is that a state isn't necessary for security and moderate material prosperity. This is good, but don't try to claim that it's an example of your specific form of pseudo-anarchy.
>>17104566
If hillary wins then men are even more fucked then they are now because she is going to give more power to women then what they already have.Mark my words she is going to push for women to have more benefits and create more laws that protect them. Men are stuck paying the tab because we pay most of the taxes
>>17105064
Your rhetoric is physically draining to read.
>>17105013
Democratic socialism
>>17104566
Hey OP, aren't you glad you didn't post this in /pol/?
>>17104566
And yet, /pol is where you will get your answers.
Don't bring their shit here.
>>17105073
Good, that means the hex is working.
>>17104902
>They choose not to, when the information is publicly available and taught in most schools
I was taught about the general election, not the primaries.
>>17104566
OP American politics is by and large controlled by corporations. Lobbyists and big money hold most of the power, and control the media. Everyday people's opinions are an afterthought, and are to be controlled by misinformation and bad reporting.
Over decades people have been disenfranchised due to gerrymandering and redistricting to dilute votes. There are also vested interests in making the voting process more difficult, and widespread corruption frustrates many potential voters. The result is large swaths of the population just don't vote at all, which makes it very easy for them to guide who they want into office by pandering to those that do vote. Most elections are decided by a small percentage of the total electorate.
Bernie Sanders will never be elected because he stands against what the political-industrial complex has sought to control for decades. They have and continue to go to great lengths to ensure he isn't allowed to progress. The only reason he's even still around is because of monumental grassroots support.
>>17105662
Well said.