Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So....interesting polling numbers once again...

Clinton was ahead by 5%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ky/kentucky_democratic_presidential_primary-5522.html

And is only leading by 0.4% with 99% reporting in.

Nah, it's just another part of this drawn out, teeth pulling exercise. It's been the same pattern throughout - Clinton surges ahead but never actually ends the race, and Sanders manages some nice symbolic wins, but never enough to actually put himself back in the race.

So he's been successful in Oregan and run it really close in Kentucky. Positive performances, but assuming he take 27/55 delegates in Kentucky, and 33/61 delegates in Oregan, what that means for the race is that before today he needed 66.2% of the remaining vote to take a majority in pledged delegates, and after today he'll need 68.5% of the remaining vote.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I think the 9m sanders supporters would be willing to support a democratic nominee that doesn't have the name Clinton....they would support someone more toward the center...but not her.

They'll support Clinton, because the alternative is Trump. If you support Sanders and won't vote for Clinton then you are simply out of touch with reality. She's way closer to Sanders' positions than Trump is, and the reality of politics in the US is that voting third-party or staying home is the same as a vote for the candidate you like the least.

 sebster wrote:

Oregan

*OREGON!!!! It's an O, not a fething A


Sorry, having grown up there, I think it's safe to say we're a tad bit touchy on the pronunciation of our home state

 whembly wrote:
sebster is making a ton of sense here ya'll.

Frankly, I hope both parties, seeing the horror of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency, does some serious fething re-calibration.

I absolutely, 100% cannot see the supposed horror in Clinton. Her presidency is basically just a continuation of Obama. There was no horror to be had when Bush took over from Reagan, and there was no horror when Gore looked to take over from Clinton.

People on the left might want more than an extension of Obama, and that's fine. And similarly people on the right will look for a shift back towards the right. That's also fine. But to call Clinton's presidency, or Obama before, a horror is just beyond ridiculous.

I've said it before, but it's only becoming more true - the mass exaggerations people have made about fundamentally centrist, steady hand candidates like Obama, Romney or Clinton, have produced a blindspot in which people fail to realise a genuinely dangerous idiot like Trump.

One of the MSNBC commentators just raised an interesting idea about a segment of Sanders supporters:

They want to punish the DNC and Clinton for for their obvious ties to corporate money...that their convention is sponsored by a number of big Fortune 500 companies....that they don't actually stand up to corporate inrerests like they say they do...taking Super PAC support..the super delegates.

All of these thing they are complicit in and have never *effectively* been called to the carpet on it until this year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I think the 9m sanders supporters would be willing to support a democratic nominee that doesn't have the name Clinton....they would support someone more toward the center...but not her.

They'll support Clinton, because the alternative is Trump. If you support Sanders and won't vote for Clinton then you are simply out of touch with reality. She's way closer to Sanders' positions than Trump is, and the reality of politics in the US is that voting third-party or staying home is the same as a vote for the candidate you like the least.

She changes her positions when it bests benefits her. I feel that the only reason she has co-opted some of Sanders talking points is not because she believes them, but because she needs his supporters to think she believes them and will vote for her.

She was against gay marriage before she was for it.
She was (and still does) take big $ from corporations before she was talking about taking on wall street.
She was for Keystone....

The list goes on and on....

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As a Sanders supporter, I actually kind of agree with you here.... Personally, what I had *hoped* would happen with the Democratic campaign, was that Sanders and his honesty would sort of "rub off" on other candidates.... I had hoped that his focusing on the "average joe" in his policies would transfer into the Clinton campaign, and that the Democrats as a whole could agree that as things stand, we cannot continue on this path.

I think Sanders honesty is much over stated. Certainly on the issue I really value honesty - policy development - he's been as mediocre as most Republicans, and miles behind Clinton. Say what you want about Clinton's personal lies, but her policies are based in absolute intellectual honesty, there are no rosy pictures painted by overly generous assumptions.

I do constantly finding myself wondering, when looking at platform issues, what has happened to our country. I mean, if you focus on the issues, and statements, Sanders is actually less "radical" than FDR was.... I happen to agree with Jon Stewart on this point: I think that we have become so accustomed to lunacy and the insanity that our politics has become, that when someone comes along like Sanders and runs on issues and platforms, and doesn't deviate from that, it looks like radicalism.

The whole of the developed world has moved to the right. Part of this has been because the left won on so many issues - we have saftety nets paid through progressive taxation, we have much greater regulations on workplace safety, and all manner of similar things. So politics evolved to debate other things.

I think what's now changing is that we are entering a new economy where jobs and a minimal safefy net just won't cut it anymore - there won't be jobs for everyone in the new economy. Whether we adapt by reducing working hours, or introducing a living wage that still encourages work, or just letting a permanent underclass develop is the new political challenge. And I predict that answering that question will create a new kind of left wing.

Yeah, I know there's all those pieces of "journalism" that say that his tax plan would be insanely expensive and "never work", etc. etc. but I think everyone here would have to agree that he has stuck to issues, and he hasn't resorted to the Rubio, Cruz, etc. tactics of attacking his opponent's spouse, or some personal thing. His attacks on Clinton were, as much as I saw, based entirely on her flip flopping and changing of position.

For a long time I credited both Sanders and Clinton for sticking to substance based debates. But Sanders increasing tendency to make baseless complaints about unfair results, capped with his ridiculous statement in the wake of the Nevada caucus has been more than a little disappointing, and made me worry that he might actually let his ego take over and flame out, rather than actually build a genuine left wing base within the Democratic party.

Oh, and it isn't just some bits of journalism that say his tax plan won't work, his plan was a total shambles, based on ridiculous assumptions. When errors were shown that couldn't be denied, the guy who costed Sanders plan just changed some more assumptions to maintain his original claim. It was exactly the kind of gakky analysis that's led the Republican party to its current terrible policy positions, and anyone on the left who values good government should be extremely critical of anyone on the left who engages in similar nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
*OREGON!!!! It's an O, not a fething A


Sorry, having grown up there, I think it's safe to say we're a tad bit touchy on the pronunciation of our home state

Sorry, my bad. I actually knew how to spell it, but I guess my fingers were confused

 sebster wrote:
I absolutely, 100% cannot see the supposed horror in Clinton.

Well she seems like a horrible person that wants to be President not to do the job but just because she craves power like Emperor Palpatine. The problem, of course, is that she is just not as awful as the alternative. Her policies are fine, if not bland and focus grouped, it is more that she just isn't very isn't likable. Still considering Trump is the other option I imagine people will still vote for her. I absolutely, 100% cannot see why people would have trouble understanding why she isn't well liked.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
..the super delegates.

How many more fething times do I have to tell you the only candidate trying to get super-delegate support in order to overturn the popular vote is Sanders. If the possibility of super-delegates flipping and over-riding the pledged delegates genuinely bothers you, then you should denounce Sanders and his plan to do just that.

And yet you just ignore that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Well she seems like a horrible person that wants to be President not to do the job but just because she craves power like Emperor Palpatine. The problem, of course, is that she is just not as awful as the alternative. Her policies are fine, if not bland and focus grouped, it is more that she just isn't very isn't likable. Still considering Trump is the other option I imagine people will still vote for her. I absolutely, 100% cannot see why people would have trouble understanding why she isn't well liked.

I absolutely agree that she isn't very likable. But I think anyone who casts their vote for President based on how much they like the candidates should be kindly asked to never, ever vote again, and possibly also to only use plastic cutlery from now on, for their own safety.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
She changes her positions when it bests benefits her. I feel that the only reason she has co-opted some of Sanders talking points is not because she believes them, but because she needs his supporters to think she believes them and will vote for her.

She was against gay marriage before she was for it.
She was (and still does) take big $ from corporations before she was talking about taking on wall street.
She was for Keystone....

The list goes on and on....

All of this is true, but Trump is worse. An inconsistent center-left president is better than a consistent far-right raving lunatic. If you support Sanders you settle for Clinton because the alternative is clearly worse. You don't have to be enthusiastic about it, but on election day you still check that "D" box.

What am I ignoring, exactly?

That he needs the sd's to win?
--At this point, it's a snowballs chance without them.

That he has to work within the framework of the DNC rules?
--Duh. Of course he has to play by their rules...doesn't mean he can't point out just how fethed up they are and work toward pressuring for change.

That the DNC setup this system to protect party favorites?
-- (see above)

What am I ignoring exactly?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
What am I ignoring, exactly?

That he needs the sd's to win?
--At this point, it's a snowballs chance without them.

That he has to work within the framework of the DNC rules?
--Duh. Of course he has to play by their rules...doesn't mean he can't point out just how fethed up they are and work toward pressuring for change.

That the DNC setup this system to protect party favorites?
-- (see above)

What am I ignoring exactly?

If it were that simple Obama would have never beaten Clinton 2008.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
What am I ignoring, exactly?

You have complained that the super-delegates are there to overturn the popular vote. And now that your guy wants to do that you're okay with it.

That he needs the sd's to win?
--At this point, it's a snowballs chance without them.

Yeah, so as long as your guy needs it to win, it's okay.

That he has to work within the framework of the DNC rules?
--Duh. Of course he has to play by their rules...doesn't mean he can't point out just how fethed up they are and work toward pressuring for change.

He isn't pressuring for them to change them, he's asking them to do the one thing they shouldn't ever do.

That the DNC setup this system to protect party favorites?
-- (see above)

That gets claimed a lot, but it's total garbage. The party simply isn't going to over-ride the popular delegate in order to get their preference over the line. Because they don't want to invite civil war within the party in an election year - the DNC knows it is always better that an outsider Democrat win in November than a Republican. Even in the most extreme case, Trump, the party was almost certainly not going to attempt to shut Trump out if he got close to an outright majority. Cruz and Kasich wanted that, but most unpledged delegates had signalled they were going to accept the popular vote in their own states.

No, unpledged delegates are set up to ensure that insiders continued to have power, simply for its own sake. Even if its power that they'd never use to over-ride the voting base, it is power and so they want it.

What am I ignoring exactly?

Honesty.

Someone mentioned that Hilary is like Palpatine.

Does that mean this election is Palpatine vs Jar Jar?

Everyone, a certain amount of heat is to be expected in a major election like President, but please don't use extreme and intemperate terms to describe the candidates.

 whembly wrote:

Frankly, I hope both parties, seeing the horror of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency, does some serious fething re-calibration.

Clinton is just an uncharismatic Obama. The conservatives she horrifies would probably be horrified by any Democrat...and likely gaze fearfully at the sky.

Trump is very likely the GOP re-calibration, as he beat a guy that did everything in his power to favorably compare himself to Reagan.

 dogma wrote:
Clinton is just an uncharismatic Obama. The conservatives she horrifies would probably be horrified by any Democrat...and likely gaze fearfully at the sky.

Pretty much. In the senate Clinton's voting record made her more liberal than 70% of Democrats, and 85% of the senate as a whole. Obama was to the left of just 82% of congress - Clinton is more liberal by a tiny amount. There's also very little difference between Clinton and Sanders - they voted the same way 93% of the time (and part of the 7% difference was Sanders crossing the floor on gun votes).

Anyone who thinks there is some vast difference among Democrats that is going to pull the party apart has been listening too much to Sanders theatrics.

Similarly anyone who thinks Clinton is some hellish master manipulator who will doom the nation through something or other just needs to stop reading far right crazy nonsense. She's a run of the mill Democrat, slightly to the left of the party's centre. Notably more to the left than her husband, but in more or less the same area, which puts her in pretty much the same place as Obama... who you should all note is just about to finish 8 years as president without the US sinking in to the sea.

 sebster wrote:
I think one of the bigger misunderstandings out there right now is that Sanders achievement in winning 9 million votes means there is a massive left wing movement out there that will only accept far left politics, and will accept no kind of comprimise with the centre left. There are certainly some very noisy people on the internet who believe in pure politics over effective politics, but extending that to all of the people who voted for Sanders is not only completely speculative, its almost certainly nonsense

Sanders isn't far left, though. He's a social democrat. That's a fundamentally capitalist ideology. Clinton or the like are leftists only if you define leftism as having a (D) after your name when you show up on television. This is precisely what the Democrats have been doing and is why they've managed to gather more radical people under them but since the leadership is unwilling to do actual leftism then the actual leftists will one day give up on the party. Why be loyal to something that will never, ever do what you want? Why should I give a damn about compromising when what we're actually compromising between is the exact degree to which to cut taxes on the wealthy?

 sebster wrote:
The only question on that front is whether Sanders will let be sensible enough to take a practical win, like getting strong influence over the party platform, or will instead choose to go out in a blaze of glory and risk November. I hold hopes that he'll return to the fold, but his idiotic nonsense in response to the events in Nevada show that he might just be stupid and vain enough to choose flaming out.

The Democratic Party rejects Sanders. If the Democratic establishment doesn't want to give him anything, he won't have anything. That's why he keeps on instead of giving up. He has grown hugely in popularity and the Democratic leadership does not in any way want to acknowledge him. They want him to do what you want every leftist to do: submit to divine liberal inevitability and obey the Democratic Party to its gain alone.


Why the hell should one vote for the person who says they won't be good but they totally won't be as bad as the other guy, that our deportations and wars won't be as bad as his deportations and wars, honest! That is what kills democracy, not people who aren't willing to settle for a supposed lesser evil. Voting against the bigger evil didn't work on literally George W Bush and Obama won because he got people enthusiastic for him despite being in fact the second Bush. And now Clinton is running on being the second Obama. And it isn't like Bush was an enormous break from his predecessor, either. So the same policies for over two decades with no recovery from the recession, the next one showing up at any time now, increasingly precarious employment for entire generations, a growing realisation that drastic changes will have to be done to make sure that global warming is a minor disaster instead of a total one and you think that the Democrats can continue on as they always have if those darn petulant Bernie Bros would just do as they're told. We have a political environment in which a person can muscle into the presidential nomination through little more than sheer loathing and disregard for the paradigm in which a bunch of mushroom-farmed aristocrats squabble over who gets to wear the crown this time. Trump can afford an official approach to policy of Yeah, Whatever, I'll Think of Something because whenever an opponent tries to give him gak for not having a carefully balanced and reasoned bundle of paper to slam down he can simply respond with "you're a human impersonator, you eat ice-cream with a fork" and that is that. And you think that Clinton, who positions herself as the very embodiment of politics as usual, is the best shot the Democrats have against the exact reaction against that.

You know what the Sanders people could do to advance there cause? Push for an IR voting system. That'll do far more good than complaining that the other side got more votes, and letting fething Trump win. Because if you actually believe in Sanders' position, you'll suck it up, and vote for Clinton in the primary. Trump will do more damage than Clinton ever could to those ideals.


Also, Whem' you know Clinton wouldn't be near as bad as Trump, so stop pretending. Don't vote for her, sure, but don't pretend they are the same.

Edit: I mean,general

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You know what the Sanders people could do to advance there cause? Push for an IR voting system. That'll do far more good than complaining that the other side got more votes, and letting fething Trump win. Because if you actually believe in Sanders' position, you'll suck it up, and vote for Clinton in the primary. Trump will do more damage than Clinton ever could to those ideals.


Also, Whem' you know Clinton wouldn't be near as bad as Trump, so stop pretending. Don't vote for her, sure, but don't pretend they are the same.

Edit: I mean,general

This. I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary and I think she lies and cheats, but Trump seems like an absolute mad man.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Also, Whem' you know Clinton wouldn't be near as bad as Trump, so stop pretending. Don't vote for her, sure, but don't pretend they are the same.

Edit: I mean,general

C'mon man.... That's like choosing between Syphalis v. HIV.

Both will be bad and I refuse to play the "choose the lesser evil" game.

If you don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump for president I really don't care. However, still go and vote for down ticket races. That is where the real action happens in politics.

 Easy E wrote:
If you don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump for president I really don't care. However, still go and vote for down ticket races. That is where the real action happens in politics.

Absolutely. I plan on voting down ticket regardless.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You know what the Sanders people could do to advance there cause? Push for an IR voting system. That'll do far more good than complaining that the other side got more votes, and letting fething Trump win. Because if you actually believe in Sanders' position, you'll suck it up, and vote for Clinton in the primary. Trump will do more damage than Clinton ever could to those ideals.


Also, Whem' you know Clinton wouldn't be near as bad as Trump, so stop pretending. Don't vote for her, sure, but don't pretend they are the same.

Edit: I mean,general

Why?

Why choose the evil you know over the evil that might be? People keep saying how bad Trump will be, but he flipflops so hard it´s impossible to actually ascertain what his platform is. He could be anything from a crypto-democrat, to standard republican or some crazy populist republican, we might never know. All those positions are bad of course, but not earth-shattering bad compared to the usual politics.

Clinton on the other hand we know is a dynastic warhawk that is in the pockets of wall street, So no, if I was an American I would go third-party if Clinton wins the nomination.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Oregan

*OREGON!!!! It's an O, not a fething A


Sorry, having grown up there, I think it's safe to say we're a tad bit touchy on the pronunciation of our home state

Oregano? Am I spelling it right now?

Rosebuddy wrote:
Sanders isn't far left, though. He's a social democrat. That's a fundamentally capitalist ideology. Clinton or the like are leftists only if you define leftism as having a (D) after your name when you show up on television.

That's a lot of foolishness. If you take the whole of US politics, assume the center is the center, because it is, you can then take the voting records of each person elected to office and see how they compare to the center. That might mean people on the far left of US politics might be center or even center right in Swedish politics, but who gives a gak when we're talking about US politics.

This is precisely what the Democrats have been doing and is why they've managed to gather more radical people under them but since the leadership is unwilling to do actual leftism then the actual leftists will one day give up on the party.

Ah yes, the great idea that there must surely be some great untapped wealth of US voters just waiting for a true left wing to emerge. I used to kind of believe that as well, a long time ago. But the thing about politics is that power rises to where the votes are. The one absolute you can take from the failure of a group to win significant political power at any level of local, state or federal politics is that there isn't that many votes for that kind of thing.

And given that Clinton and Sanders are just now winding up an election, and Clinton has Sanders beat by 3 million votes and with that number likely to increase given the remaining states... well then we can probably conclude there's more voters who want left wing over far left. That should be obvious, except the true believes in Sanders wish it wasn't true, so they invent all kinds of silliness.

The Democratic Party rejects Sanders. If the Democratic establishment doesn't want to give him anything, he won't have anything.

You have no understanding how any of this works. How much of the power in any party is brokered. Sanders is the third most significant force in Democratic politics, behind Obama and Clinton. He holds a lot of bargaining chips, and can use those to wield significant input on the Democratic party platform.

As for the rest, well I was a student once as well, and you gave me a nice feeling of nostalgia, so I won't be mean in responding.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Why?

Why choose the evil you know over the evil that might be?

Because, to quote a friend of mine, "you can't put "pride" on a resume".

 whembly wrote:
C'mon man.... That's like choosing between Syphalis v. HIV.

Both will be bad and I refuse to play the "choose the lesser evil" game.

Again, this is end result of decades of 'errmagherd the other team's candidate is a horrible lunatic'. Both sides have played this game, everyone is to blame, but ultimately all that matters is that when a genuinely dangerous lunatic lands a nomination, around half the country can't even tell the difference between a run of the mill politician that they're conditioned to pretend to be afraid of, and an actually dangerous idiot.

Even if you don't like her policies, and for someone on the right there's plenty to not like, then PJ O'Rourke is the quote to keep in mind "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Why?

Why choose the evil you know over the evil that might be? People keep saying how bad Trump will be, but he flipflops so hard it´s impossible to actually ascertain what his platform is. He could be anything from a crypto-democrat, to standard republican or some crazy populist republican, we might never know. All those positions are bad of course, but not earth-shattering bad compared to the usual politics.

Because there are many things outside the normal bounds of politics that are just accepted as they are because that's how stable governments operate. Trump has jumped at a bunch of those things, and proposed genuinely dangerous, incredibly stupid proposals.

On debt, for instance, Trump seemed entirely oblivious to role of safe bonds in a functioning business environment, and seemed to think the only issue to consider was how to scam lower future payments. He treats economic management like he's running a failing Atlantic casino.

There is a very good reason The Economist, which is nowhere near a left wing publication, considers the election of Trump one of most significant risks to the world economy.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
C'mon man.... That's like choosing between Syphalis v. HIV.

Both will be bad and I refuse to play the "choose the lesser evil" game.

Again, this is end result of decades of 'errmagherd the other team's candidate is a horrible lunatic'. Both sides have played this game, everyone is to blame, but ultimately all that matters is that when a genuinely dangerous lunatic lands a nomination, around half the country can't even tell the difference between a run of the mill politician that they're conditioned to pretend to be afraid of, and an actually dangerous idiot.

But, there's a 3rd option.

There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely convinced Hillary Clinton will win handily... but, it's about making a statement for the future.

I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.

Even if you don't like her policies, and for someone on the right there's plenty to not like, then PJ O'Rourke is the quote to keep in mind "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

That's a crock of gak from PJ. He's simply #NeverTrump.

That's the whole fething point of being dissenters... if you dissent, based on your principles, you're duty-bound to root yourself down and tell the others "No... you move". (yes, I've seen the new Captain America movie. )

 whembly wrote:

But, there's a 3rd option.

There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely convinced Hillary Clinton will win handily... but, it's about making a statement for the future.

I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.

Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

Why?

Why choose the evil you know over the evil that might be? People keep saying how bad Trump will be, but he flipflops so hard it´s impossible to actually ascertain what his platform is. He could be anything from a crypto-democrat, to standard republican or some crazy populist republican, we might never know. All those positions are bad of course, but not earth-shattering bad compared to the usual politics.

Clinton on the other hand we know is a dynastic warhawk that is in the pockets of wall street, So no, if I was an American I would go third-party if Clinton wins the nomination.

Because out country's political system relys on it. You want to change it? Then go out and campaign for and IR voting system. Campaign against gerrymandering. Campaign for election fiance reforming. But letting someone like Trump win, it not the way to do it. It's not about the lesser of two evils, because, you support Sanders, you have to realize that Clinton is not so different. More moderate, yes, but much of their beliefs are the same. And if you think your message has weight, than support senators and legislators who also push for these things, or even run yourself. But throwing a temper-tantrum that your candidate didn't win is not the way to solve this. Just because you vote for a candidate doesn't mean you have to agree with them completely, and it doesn't mean that you have to lose your beliefs. But letting someone like Trump, who is the the complete opposite of everything Sanders represents, win is ridiculous. There are people know who are going "Sanders didn't win, so I'm supporting Trump." I wish I was kidding. Such is the state of politics here.


(you, your, ect are being used in general terms).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But, there's a 3rd option.

There's a rise in folks that want to break out of the two-party, lesser-of-two-evils Presidential paradigm in which we live every four fething years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely convinced Hillary Clinton will win handily... but, it's about making a statement for the future.

I want the vote count on the Presidential tickets to go waaaaaaay down, such that, the major parties would ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.

Than you will stand with me to support an IR voting system? It's one of the simplest solutions to the two-party system.

In the Primary? Sure.