Live stream of Dem Convention.

[Silver]

Election Justice USA finds that Bernie Sanders lost an estimated 184 delegates to Election Fraud

http://usapoliticsnow.com/?p=4058

[Whateverist]

Yeah, that's a damn shame for Bernie. It just isn't attributable to Hillary by any reasonable evidence which I've seen. Of course that doesn't stop those looking for fresh material from smearing her with it. She isn't perfect. She isn't as liberal as Bernie. She'll just be more effective getting more of the platform which reflect his agenda enacted than he would have been.

[SteelCurtain]

usapoliticsnow and Election Justice USA are not necessarily reliable sources. I'm sure the man lost some delegates.

[Tiberius]

I think Tibs is safe to vote for Stein or Johnson in MA.

FL voters, OH voters, PA voters---voting third party would be, IMO, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Um, unless I am seriously in error, doesn't Massachusetts have a republicunt governor right now? 

Chickens.  Eggs.  And when to count them.

As I'm sure you know, there's a big difference between state and national elections. Massachusetts is a heavily liberal state when it comes to national elections, but we have a history of electing Republican governors (though they tend to be as left leaning as Republicans get).

That doesn't change the fact that our state senate and representatives are mostly Democrat, or that we haven't voted for a Republican in the presidential election since 1984. In the last 5 elections, the Democrat has obtained at least 59% of the vote.

Also, we're not the only state like this. California is a heavily liberal state, but elected Arnie as governor.

[Alex K]

Good grief, who the fuck cares how many % the green party gets? How much revolutionary change to the US electoral system have the votes for Nader brought back in the day? They brought us many thousand dead soldiers and civilians from where I stand.

You are still stuck with the two-party system, so shut up, do your duty to humanity and vote for Hilary to prevent a egomanic idiot from taking the White House.

It isn't the "two party" system that is a problem, it is the monopoly of power that is. India has an absurd amount of political parties and far more poverty and still stuck in a Caste system which our 1% would love to replicate.

That's alao a problem, but kind of a different one.

[Brian37]

Um, unless I am seriously in error, doesn't Massachusetts have a republicunt governor right now? 

Chickens.  Eggs.  And when to count them.

As I'm sure you know, there's a big difference between state and national elections. Massachusetts is a heavily liberal state when it comes to national elections, but we have a history of electing Republican governors (though they tend to be as left leaning as Republicans get).

That doesn't change the fact that our state senate and representatives are mostly Democrat, or that we haven't voted for a Republican in the presidential election since 1984. In the last 5 elections, the Democrat has obtained at least 59% of the vote.

Also, we're not the only state like this. California is a heavily liberal state, but elected Arnie as governor.

No actually there is not a difference, it does you no good to win national elections or congressional elections if your state is run by a majority you cant break the gridlock with. While there is some separation between state and federal, you still have state and federal having to work with each other. Our 36 year decline is a result of the GOP winning, most of the time on average, more Govornorships, more state majorities, which in turn has allowed them to draw the voting districts at a far higher rate. 

Progressives outside of the office of President, have sucked at long term local and state levels especially in midterms. We cant simply praise or condemn either Bernie or Hillary, neither can change things at a bold scale, if we don't put pressure on not only the president, but congress, and state Govornorships and state congresses as well as the local level. 

If we want Bernie's change, then it is more important to put Hillary in who would be much easier to move back to the left as compared to Trump, who would have a big enough majority to cause some very serious damage and turn back the clock. But even with putting her in, that alone is not enough, we still need to put a congress there that can push her back to the left as well as a congress she can work with without the obstruction, but that also applies to states too.

[Tiberius]

No actually there is not a difference, it does you no good to win national elections or congressional elections if your state is run by a majority you cant break the gridlock with. While there is some separation between state and federal, you still have state and federal having to work with each other. Our 36 year decline is a result of the GOP winning, most of the time on average, more Govornorships, more state majorities, which in turn has allowed them to draw the voting districts at a far higher rate. 

Progressives outside of the office of President, have sucked at long term local and state levels especially in midterms. We cant simply praise or condemn either Bernie or Hillary, neither can change things at a bold scale, if we don't put pressure on not only the president, but congress, and state Govornorships and state congresses as well as the local level. 

If we want Bernie's change, then it is more important to put Hillary in who would be much easier to move back to the left as compared to Trump, who would have a big enough majority to cause some very serious damage and turn back the clock. But even with putting her in, that alone is not enough, we still need to put a congress there that can push her back to the left as well as a congress she can work with without the obstruction, but that also applies to states too.

I meant there is usually a difference in the way people vote when it comes to national and state / local elections. People view the national elections are more important (however incorrect that view may be), and so the national result is often the more accurate one when determining the political majority of a state / area.

Minimalist was pointing to the fact that Massachusetts have a Republican governor and trying to infer that the state might not be a Democratic stronghold. My point is, a state's choice of governor doesn't necessarily mean the state will vote for the same party nationally.

Compare this map of Governors' parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unite...rs_map.svg to this map of how the states voted in the 2012 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states...ge2012.svg

There are plenty of states which vote against their governor's party. Just look at Massachusetts, Maine, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio (Republican governors, voted Obama), and conversely, Montana, Missouri, Louisiana, West Virginia (Democratic governor, voted Romney).

[Brian37]

I agree, nobody should vote Trump. That doesn't mean I have to vote Clinton though.

I would like to live in a country where the worst conflict we have to face is some poo pooing picking pre season games and picking on ABBA.

[ReptilianPeon]

If I remember rightly, Senator Sanders wanted Senator Warren to run for president. However, Hilary managed to scare Warren enough not to want to run. So, not wanting Hilary to enter the primary season unchallenged, and have a coronation, Sanders decided to go on the Democratic ticket. All throughout the primary season Hilary and Her worshippers have acted like Bernie is like that annoying little fly you want to sway away but are not able too.

They wanted a coronation. These same people who say Bernie is too unrealistic and his idea won't get through with the deadlock at the moment are the same people who are pooing their pants the most over Donald. Most of Donald's ideas are even more unrealistic than Bernie's so it's a double standard. If Bernie's idea of free university level education and public health care are too crazy then Donald's ideas, especially that wall, are even less likely to pass.

[Whateverist]

If I remember rightly, Senator Sanders wanted Senator Warren to run for president. However, Hilary managed to scare Warren enough not to want to run. So, not wanting Hilary to enter the primary season unchallenged, and have a coronation, Sanders decided to go on the Democratic ticket. All throughout the primary season Hilary and Her worshippers have acted like Bernie is like that annoying little fly you want to sway away but are not able too.

They wanted a coronation. These same people who say Bernie is too unrealistic and his idea won't get through with the deadlock at the moment are the same people who are pooing their pants over Donald. Most of Donald's ideas are even more unrealistic than Bernie's so it's a double standard. If Bernie's idea of free university level education and public health care are too crazy then Donald's ideas, especially that wall, are even less likely to pass.

So you and others keep saying.  But it isn't true in my experience.  I wanted Bernie to beat Hillary initially.  I know many others who feel the same way.  I surely never wanted her to beat him through subterfuge on her behalf by the DNC.  Because Hillary decided to immediately hire Wasserman Shultz after she was forced to resign in disgrace, I now want someone better to replace her in four years.  It is too late for this cycle and too much is at stake to fuck with it now.  But Hillary must go in 2020.