this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
939 points (89.1% liked)
People Twitter
4849 readers
1518 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If we didn't have the archaic Electoral College system, she would have won. She won the popular vote by millions.
Bernie would have won if the DNC wasn't so heavily focused on it being her "turn". And then it was Joes "turn" after that. Bernie was the only person Trump was afraid of.
Not saying you're wrong or anything. Just adding to it.
This wasn't true about Biden. The establishment didn't care who won that primary, as long as it wasn't Bernie. I think Harris was their first choice, but they flipped to Biden when she tanked.
Biden absolutely believes he "earned" his time as president. He's a life long politician that went through all the steps for it.
Oh, Biden himself does actually believe that, but that's true of pretty much every president. I do think it's a little more extreme in his case than for most.
That may be, but he's better at hiding it than Hillary. She seemed to always be making it clear that it was her turn. That message came across much more strongly than anything else.
That is entirely possible.
However, I am not convinced Bernie could have gotten an agenda through either. It's not exactly like his political ideals are even loved by a lot of the Democrats in government.
Not saying I wouldn't have wanted him for president, I voted for him. But I am not convinced he would have been any more effective than Carter.
It's really hard to implement a progressive agenda when even the so-called left isn't on that agenda's side.
Look to FDR as a model of what happens when a progressive agenda gets a firebrand President. It's not like the politics were all that different, or Congress any less corrupt.
I disagree. The politics were a lot different. For example, the filibuster worked completely differently.
You only need 50%+ of the senate to change the rules that allow the filibuster.
Good luck with that.
That's the point of the firebrand President. We have not had a President since FDR who knows how to stand up to special interests and even their own party when necessary.
Why would they listen to him and get rid of the filibuster if they don't agree with his agenda?
You mean on principal? Those in Congress with principals are on our side. Those without principals can be convinced it's in their best interest. Don't fall for the facade that anything that happens in Congress is ideologically driven.
Other than Bernie, who are those?
Their best interest is what can make them the most money, which is why they're legally allowed to do insider training.
Their best interest is also whatever helps keep them in office. Terrible representatives are typically only secure in their offices if they have the protection of the party. The President has as much power as leader of their party as they get from their actual office. FDR used that to great effect.
The point is that it's a self-imposed handicap. If a party has 50%+ in both houses and the presidency, they have the ability to pass whatever they like and choose not to use it.
I agree. And they wouldn't have gotten rid of that handicap if Bernie was president because it benefits them.
The left functionality doesn't exist in this country. We stamped them out in the Cold War and replaced them with the new Democrats who were all for social progressivism but economically were beholden to corporate interests. Then you have the conservatives who are so socially regressive they think Sharia Law is a roadmap and are so in bed with corporate interests that they'd be fine if kids died in coal mines as long as someone at the top is getting paid.
We can't have the true left back until we get voting reform. Ranked choice or approval voting is essential to allow 3rd parties to have a chance to flourish without causing a spoiler effect. That will also pull the Overton window back to the left again as the two major political parties will have less of an incentive to court extremists and will see better results at the polls if their platforms appeal to as many people as possible.
Fair enough. But then again, if you didn't have that, the campaigns of both sides would employ different strategies, leading to different outcomes.
Yeah, that Electoral College sure jumped right out in front of her, only giving her 227 years to prepare.
And the entire center of the geographical US would look like the Appalachians, but who cares about "flyover country" anyway?
What does that even mean? What does it have to do with the fact that she would have won if the president, who serves the nation was elected by a national popular vote rather that one which weights Montana and Massachusetts equally?
Because, believe it or not, keeping Hillary from winning is not why the Electoral College exists.
One of the reasons the United States has been the breadbasket of the world is because our government has HAD to account for the interests of underpopulated agrarian areas that otherwise would be ignored because they wouldn't get ELECTED otherwise. Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa are IMPORTANT in elections. So we take care of our farmers.
Funny the way that works, isn't it?
Our farmers are not taken care of by their senators and congresspeople so they need to be artificially weighed in favor of when it comes to the chief executive? I'm sorry, that's just silly.
No it's not. Sorry, you and I do not agree.
You're right. We don't agree. I don't think giving a farmer a vote more powerful than a city dweller's when it comes to who should run the entire nation is ludicrous. Making up for a state's small population is what the senate is for.
Everyone's vote for president should be counted equally.