Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

everything is Sanders' fault says Tombot's gnostic gospel

thank you mr biden, i am a sanders supporter and i would like complete decarbonization and dismantling of american empire https://t.co/wrH7Jh4klo

— the fluids drinker (@AllezLesBoulez) April 8, 2020

very moderate demands!

"I would like"

citizens can't demand shit at the moment

this twitter person is not someone I know but it's basically where a lot of people I consider my peers seem to be at

pic.twitter.com/9lugnYYEld

— Mary Ellen (@alissacaliente) April 8, 2020

confidential to alfred I m/l only know queer and trans people

I hope you and your friends know that voting is just one component of political action. The field for promoting social change is open all day long, every day of the year, from today until election day in November, and far beyond. Making good use of that possibility is a much better focus of your energy than the essentially empty and impotent gesture of not voting. As symbolic acts of resistance go, not voting for president is about as effective as casting a write-in vote for the ever-popular Mickey Mouse. It goes unnoticed, carries no force and changes nothing.

there's no form of political power in this country that doesn't leverage voting

but Aimless is 100% correct

Yup even if you do get the person you want into office you have to then hold them accountable, and sometimes you can even get the person you don't want to do the thing you want.

as we've been over many times, voting is not an expression of personal ethics, it is a tool for achieving political ends

I would hope that by suspending his campaign, Sanders still intends to use his influence with his enthusiastic voting bloc to draw concessions from the Biden campaign in terms of party platform and Biden's positions on future policy. But if the impression gets solidified that Sanders can't deliver any votes for Biden, then Sanders will lose whatever leverage he gained from the couple million votes that were cast for him so far.

if only there were a better voting system that allowed for an expression of personal preferences AND achieving political ends

but no, the way we do it in the united states is the only way to do it, apparently. it always amazes me how there is zero discussion of different voting systems in this country. we don't have to be stuck in this miserable rut

I hear you (and imo the Democrats should make enfranchisement their #1 issue) but different voting system discussion would probably just be a tease like here in Canada

it always amazes me how there is zero discussion of different voting systems in this country

I've been having that discussion for more than two decades now, but it is hard to gain much traction when every organized and effective political entity in the nation is required to invest heavily in the present system in order to accomplish its goals. the inertia is so massive as to be nearly impossible to divert to a radically new direction.

Karl - not zero! We see people discussing different systems all the time. The thing is that the people discussing it are not people who have the power to put reforms into place.

Unfortunately the way forward is to win elections (by which I mean, win them as they are currently constructed), attain power, then put those reforms into place. Being out of power while saying that "the system" keeps you out of power is a sure path to irrelevance and the continuation of your grievance. There are decently mature movements in the US for ranked-choice voting, but their impact has been muted.

Will a completely shitty "lesser of evils" election change that? I dunno, but it mostly hasn't yet.

On enfranchisement, this seems like a very good idea: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/4/8/21209306/election-2020-vote-by-mail-wisconsin

it just seems like it's never something that a politician pushes, and it's never part of party's platforms. there seems to be very little public pressure for them to talk about it more. it's just quiet.

for example, now seems like a perfect time for the DNC to rethink voting models, at least for the primaries. They can run the primaries however they want, correct? And they just ended up with a "consensus" candidate that is embarrassing garbage, and didn't actually seem to be many people's _favorite_ candidate, more like their 2nd to 7th choice that for some mysterious reason was the last option remaining.

Bernie should refuse to pass on his delegates unless election reform (or at least primary elections) is on the table

what primary election reforms do you envision?

seems like getting rid of caucuses is a good idea...

it just seems like it's never something that a politician pushes, and it's never part of party's platforms. there seems to be very little public pressure for them to talk about it more. it's just quiet.

Why would the DNC rethink voting models? Everything worked out exactly in their favor.

but aren't those decisions made at the state party level anyway? I don't think reforms could be enforced from the top (not even sure what the top is here... the DNC? the nominee?) down.

xps

... because the current system benefits them.

yes, i know! that's why sentence two is in there: someone has to MAKE them do it, and unless i'm missing it, i'm not sure where that effort is coming from

eventually, bread riots

but aren't those decisions made at the state party level anyway?

well, who decides which states get to go first, and who gets to go last? maybe it makes sense to give the first votes to states that have figured out how to update their voting systems beyond the 19th century

the DNC can presumably not certify delegates from any state party that doesn't conduct the kind of election they want

they should all go on the same day. and then there should be a second round.

second round is superfluous with ranked choice voting

the state by state stuff is charming but anti-democratic. it makes the whole thing about "momentum."

I suppose you could run off the top 2 just so people who might not have coped with the ranking process can have another whack at it but it's not really necessary

*extremely somebody voice* America is antidemocratic

well that's not strictly true of course, the 19th and 20th centuries saw lots of major reforms towards a more democratic/less patrician electoral system at various levels. Dunno if it worked!

well, who decides which states get to go first, and who gets to go last?

the states do! Doesn't Iowa have it *written into their Constitution* that their primaries are first in the nation?

sorry, CAUCUSES

there is no reason to do it like that

the DNC can presumably not certify delegates from any state party that doesn't conduct the kind of election they want

that sounds like a good way to destroy the party/create massive levels of in-fighting over "local control" etc.

local party organizations are presumably all hopped-up social clubs devoted to protecting the worst local-politician scum on earth

I'm sure we've already discussed that a national same-day primary privileges candidates with national organizations, national reach, money for national advertising, etc. - and that an upstart insurgent candidate would fare worse, not better, in such a scenario?

the reason it's done like that is because that's how the states want it.

I like how you all (which, to a one, talk about the DNC like they are the Elders of Zion) are implicitly arguing for the DNC to take an even more expansive view of their powers and dictate rules to local parties.

xps

wow, elders of zion

you guys are delusional/terrible strategists

well, it would mean the primary campaign starting right after inauguration day

xxxps

like, you complain on the one hand that the DNC rigged the primaries but on the other hand loathe the local parties and want the DNC to tell them what to do. yeah, that makes sense.

whence my obligation to make sense

but aren't those decisions made at the state party level anyway? I don't think reforms could be enforced from the top (not even sure what the top is here... the DNC? the nominee?) down.

from what i can tell, it's not so much a "decision" as a "tradition" that everyone keeps mindlessly following. the states don't unilaterally make the decision, and the DNC doesn't either - it's supposed to be the "democratic party" coordinating on it, whatever that means. is the "democratic party" the DNC, the local organizations, or both?

sorry, lol i'm actually "presenting" at work right now, i better concentrate on that for a moment

the Democratic Party doesn't actually exist, we've been over that too

Do you have any political views that aren’t sucking yourself off at your own genius or slay kweening Pelosi?

when Bernie talks about a grassroots revolution what do you think he is talking about? He's talking about taking over the party apparatus from the bottom - ie, the local parties, up through the state parties/delegations, up through the DNC, and from there to national institutions.

It seems more like you want a specific minority of the party to just seize the levers of power.

Hmmm

xps

That was many xps obv

I think it would be good for the left to seize the levers of power, yes