Simple Question for Everyone here.

[retrowire]

A democracy is a system in which all citizens are given the voice to choose who they trust to be their next leader.

So why is it, that the two leading nominees of both parties have the highest unfavorability and highest untrustworthy ratings?

Why would the least trusted and disliked candidates come out on top in a system that is supposedly designed so that candidates people trust are given the keys to the White House?

This is not opinion or rumor. This is fact. Hillary is not trusted. Trump is not trusted. Neither are liked by the majority.

To those of you who will surely run in and comment about the millions of votes Hillary is getting, I'll go ahead and remind you of these facts...

1. No matter how many voters want Hillary, there are still independents, Bernie supporters, Trump supporters and plain old Republicans that do NOT want Hillary. With that, it is easy to see the majority is not leaning towards Hillary. That's super easy math.

2. You could even compare primary votes right now to see that Hillary would not "annihilate" Trump as some of you are terrifyingly comfortable with believing. Who has been breaking voter turnout records this primary season? Republicans. Not Democrats. Republicans. They feel they are SO CLOSE to getting a Republican controlled Congress and Senate, all that's left is the presidency! And if they have to vote Trump just to finally get a TOTALLY RED government, then they'll do it.

Meanwhile, Republicans hate Hillary, Independents dislike her and Democrats as a whole have mixed feelings.

So again! The question...

Why is it, that the two leading nominees of both parties have the highest unfavorability and highest untrustworthy ratings, in a system where the most liked and trusted should be succeeding?

[hrmjustin]

1. It will not be an easy race but Hillary has come in first place and has earned the nomination.

[retrowire]

5. But in a system where a candidate like her should be faltering

She is succeeding.

Just wrap your head around that. The least trusted candidates are winning?

[hrmjustin]

7. Maybe because people trust her to be president.

When you vote for someone you put your trust in them.

[retrowire]

11. im sure some do.

But when I look at Republicans breaking voter turnout records, independents making up the majority of the nation and Trump and Bernie supporters turning out in the thousands...

Easy math says her following is not in the majority.

So why would she win the general with those odds? You said it would be hard.

But how would it be possible?

[hrmjustin]

15. So we should just give up because it will be hard?

[retrowire]

23. no giving up

I will hold my nose if I have to.

But I would suggest everyone jump the Hillary ship onto something that isn't in a dead heat with Trump.

That's my solution.

[metroins]

103. Hillary is the most intelligent of the 3 running

If shit hit the fan I'd want Hillary at the helm.

WW3, terrorist attack, Economic downturn, plague, whatever it is, out of the 3 I'd trust Hillary to handle it the best.

Her personality and enthusiasm? Lacking in my opinion. But president is a big deal and I trust her to not get me destroyed.

[asuhornets]

24. "candidate like her should be faltering"

That is your opinion..Sometimes the person you vote for don't win. Bernie Sanders, his surrogates and his supporters have been saying for the longest time that once we hear his message, everyone would gravitate to him.. That did not happen because his message did not resonate to lifelong Democrats including myself. If someone wants to be President, they have to give specifics and ensure to voters that they can handle the job. This is not a popularity contest.

[retrowire]

31. it didnt happen as well as it could have because

He wasn't given as much screentime as anyone else.

The democratic party pissed on his campaign from day one.

[asuhornets]

34. You are making excuses.....nt

[retrowire]

43. these are truths and history will say as much. sorry. nt

[jberryhill]

99. Bwhahahahhahahha - "Jimmy Who?"

You think the party establishment liked a little-known one term governor of Georgia?

Bwhahahahahahah

[retrowire]

100. mocking me for something i didn't say? hilarious.

Anyways, that was a different time. The political climate was not what it is today.

[jberryhill]

105. Again, the fact that the line does not resonate with you is demonstrative...

...of why you should probably avoid opining on historical differences.

The Democratic establishment disliked Carter with a passion.

In what sense is the "political climate" different? In the sense that the president and vice president of the United States at that time were elected by nobody at all, as a consequence of the first and only president ever to resign?

You think there was a lot of consensus back then? What?

[angrychair]

69. This reply is so tired

If someone wants to be President, they have to give specifics

He has, you just don't care and don't want to listen. Every time I hear this "no specifics" crap I laugh. Most of the things he proposes are supported by actual Bills he has submitted to Congress, with policy and implementation specifics, it's just not what teapublican and moderate centrist Democrats want as there is little to no profit in it.

I have read through both HRC and Sanders' policies, I agree more with the effort and direction of Sanders but I don't see where HRC is so damn specific on her proposals. There are holes big enough to drive a tank through. Yes, some Sanders' proposals could have been sold better and more clearly but they are no more vague than any political proposal to an issue.

I'm sure HRC and her supporters mean well but these "baby steps" position policies is not working out for the majority of us. Maybe your one of the lucky few, good for you, I would like to see a little more progress and a lot less compromising and half-ass solutions.

[asuhornets]

70. Compromise..it's not a dirty word..

[angrychair]

72. It is

If you are the one being compromised.

Example: Puerto Rico

A place that has spent decades being "compromised" into oblivion, where the rich get richer and the poor and middle class people of PR get left with the bill.
That is what "compromises" get you.


Example: ACA

A compromise that still left many with high premiums, high deductibles and high out of pocket expenses and no dental care. Yes, it was better than no insurance at all but many don't use it as they cannot afford their share and now the cost of it is about to go up.
That is what "compromises" get you.

[metroins]

104. Uncompromising means

You don't get shit.

Medicare and SS were extremely lacking when passed. Amendments have made them what they are today.

[angrychair]

108. Amendments are not always compromises

Sometimes they are proposed in spite of compromises.

'Compromise' is not a a dirty word by itself. In relationships: friends, partners, spouses and children, compromise is part of a healthy relationship.

Not so much in politics. Any time in politics you hear the words "compromise" or "bipartisanship" it typically means than someone just got richer but the poor definitely got poorer.

Haven't you ever wondered when it it comes to "compromising" it is almost always the poor and middle class being compromised? We end up getting disportionately impacted by whatever "grand bargain" is being sold to us by the political elite? Why do we have to "compromise" for $12 an hour when $15 is what we are demanding as a living wage? Is the $12 an hour better. Yes. Does it actually fix the systemic issues that were meant to be addressed by moving to $15 an hour? No. No, those problems will still exist.
That is the diabolical conundrum in a political "compromise". It does sometimes make it it better than it was but doesn't actually fix the issues that the original proposal actually was meant to solve. To make matters worse, the "compromise" always carries the implied or overt "promise" that it will be looked at again in the future in some sort of ridiculous Zeno dichotomy paradox in which we never actually see the goal we were meant to achieve.

[boston bean]

2. Ummmm. They both won more votes and delegates.

[retrowire]

3. But they are the least trusted and liked.

So why is the system somehow allowing them to win?

[hrmjustin]

4. People voted. That is the system they won under.

[retrowire]

6. its not as simple as that.

If only. But it's not.

Bernie won majority vote in a state and Hillary won more delegates there.

And that's just a piece of all of this.

It's not as simple as one person one vote. Never was.

[hrmjustin]

10. Hillary has won more votes and delegates.

She has won.

[retrowire]

12. i hear you, i really do.

But how is it possible for her to win the general?

[hrmjustin]

17. She wins more votes.

[retrowire]

21. okay

Hillary supporters - Trumpers, record breaking Republicans, BernieorBust, and finally the large one, independents.

There's your math.

[hrmjustin]

22. How come Sanders could not get a higher voter turnout?

I mean he is supposed to be more popular.

[retrowire]

25. there were times when he did and it didnt matter

There was alot of suppression as well.

And then, I think there may have been too much pessimism and honestly, dirty tricks. Had the democratic party not tried to destroy Bernie's character so much or avoid giving him any publicity, then Bernie's campaign wouldn't have been so suppressed.

Despite all the suppression though, the fight has been very well fought.

And nice deflection btw, just noticed. Do you not have a comment on that math?

[hrmjustin]

27. You are making excuses.

[retrowire]

33. you asked my opinion, i answered

I gave you the math and you deflected.

Your move.

[hrmjustin]

36. Sanders lost fair and square.

[retrowire]

42. we're not talking about that though

Please try to keep up.

Hillary supporters - Trumpers, record breaking Republicans, Bernie or Bust, independents.

Seriously, do you even care about the Democrats winning this? Or are you still in petty "Bernie lost Hillary wins!" High school mode?

This is the real world now, come to the light, Hillary is not favored by ALL of those record breaking voters.

Hillary is not the strongest candidate. And we're likely fucked because of it.

[hrmjustin]

44. No i spent 5 weeks everyday canvassing for Hillary for my health.

[retrowire]

45. that has nothing

To do with what I just said.

[hrmjustin]

47. You said;

Seriously, do you even care about the Democrats winning this? Or are you still in petty "Bernie lost Hillary wins!" High school mode?


You got my response.

Good day.

[retrowire]

48. your 5 weeks of canvassing

Might have a bit of trouble against those odds I just gave you.

[Andy823]

95. OK

Republican had record breaking turnouts because most republicans can not stand Trump and turned out to vote for someone else.

Bernie or Bust is bullshit, something Karl Roves trolls have been pushing in order to get anyone gullible enough to stay home and not vote in November.

Independents will come out and vote, they won't stay home just because Bernie didn't win.

Hillary is a lot stronger than Bernie. Bernie has not been vetted, and if were to win the nomination, Trump would chew him up and spit him out in a heartbeat. Bernie has a lot of baggage even though is followers can't admit to them. He has a past that when brought out day in and day out would end his chance of winning. Republicans have an entire playbook on him and have been pushing him to win by getting republicans to vote for him in primaries, they have donated to his campaign, Karl Rove ran ads against Hillary during the primaries, but never bothered with Bernie. The republicans would be in heaven if they could run against Bernie.

We are not fucked at all. The right wing trolls want us to think that so they can convince more voters to stay home and not bother to vote. If you push that meme you are helping them win, so you should think about that when you post right wing BS.

[retrowire]

96. It really depends on what you believe.

And I've been out and about and I have my experiences. I know the rallies, I know the yard signs, I know the demonstrations. This support for Hillary, I have literally NEVER seen in real life or anywhere other than DU.

Sure, I might just be in a bubble, but my bubble is similar to a shit load of other bubbles.

[msongs]

8. you are contradicting your self and your own OP...you say that

"A democracy is a system in which all citizens are given the voice to choose who they trust to be their next leader." then deny that is the case.
the "system" is not allowing them to win, they are getting actual votes from people who know how to vote.

[retrowire]

20. again, its not that simple

Because one person doesn't equal one vote.

Hillary won more delegates in a state where Bernie won the popular vote for example.

It's not as cut and dry as, "people voted Hillary" because sometimes, they didn't.

[jberryhill]

9. The simple answer

Because "primary voters" are not the pool of those queried in the trustworthiness poll.

Here is your bad assumption:

Why would the least trusted and disliked candidates come out on top in a system that is supposedly designed so that candidates people trust are given the keys to the White House?

There is no system "designed so that candidates people trust are given the keys to the White House." The primaries are run by state organizations to determine the candidate preferred by a majority of those participating in the primary process. They are not "designed" to do anything else.

[retrowire]

14. so are you saying the majority would vote for the least trusted candidates?

And that makes sense?

[jberryhill]

29. No, I am not saying either of those things

I'm sorry, but I thought you were asking a question about what you perceive to be a mismatch between the primary results and a poll of the general electorate.

The obvious answer to your question is that the people who participate in primaries are unlike the general electorate. Only a small portion of the general electorate actually votes in any elections, and a smaller proportion of that small group participates in primaries.

Unsurprisingly, the unusual and small group of people who participate in the primaries hold opinions which differ from the general electorate.

That is the answer to the question posed in your OP.

I now realize that your question was merely a vehicle for some other point you would like to make.

[retrowire]

35. im not just talking about primaries though

I'm talking about this whole thing.

[jberryhill]

64. Well I guess I need to figure out what you are talking about

Your OP has a premise and two questions:

A democracy is a system in which all citizens are given the voice to choose who they trust to be their next leader.

That's correct. In our version of democracy, however, many citizens choose not to participate. The proportion of citizens who participate in the primary process - at all - is a minority of the voting age population.

So why is it, that the two leading nominees of both parties have the highest unfavorability and highest untrustworthy ratings?

Because the leading nominees are not chosen by the people who were asked that question.


Why would the least trusted and disliked candidates come out on top in a system that is supposedly designed so that candidates people trust are given the keys to the White House?

Because (a) the vast majority of voting age citizens do not participate in the primaries and (b) the system is not "designed" to accomplish the result you suggest.

There are a huge differences between "primary voters" (people who vote in primaries); "voters" (people who vote generally); "eligible voters" (people who are registered and/or qualified to vote); and "adults". If you ask different questions to different groups of people, you get different answers.

[retrowire]

66. new question and its for you.

What is the difference between a primary voter and a general voter? Both are a registered voter.

Is it that the primary voter is likely more involved politically?

And the general voter is inclined to only choose the simplified choices left behind by the primary voter?

If so, then with this magical year of 2016 we all have to admit that a gigantic swath of newcomers have entered the fold. And they entered during the primaries, and this election unlike any other has some REALLY high stakes.

I think that makes a difference.

[jberryhill]

73. Pretty obvious

What is the difference between a primary voter and a general voter?

Primary voters are people who vote in primaries. They are a small minority of registered voters.

In polls, you will often see the following labels "adults", "registered voters" and "likely voters". Each of these are smaller buckets of people with "likely voters" being people whose registration data indicates that they regularly vote.


Is it that the primary voter is likely more involved politically?

I don't know. I vote in dang near everything because my polling place is across the street from where I live. I would imagine that convenience is a significant factor.

But it is often the case that primary results fail to capture the sentiment among people more generally. In 2012, for example, Delaware had a very popular long-serving Representative Mike Castle (R) who decided to run for Joe Biden's vacated senate seat. Had he won the GOP primary, which he was assumed to do, he would have easily won the senate seat. However, an insurgent campaign by Christine O'Donnell spurred unexpectedly large turnout in Delaware's two rural counties, took upstate Republicans by surprise, and turfed him out in the primary. There's no question that he would have won the general election had he survived.

Those sorts of things happen. Primary and caucus participation is relatively very low.

[retrowire]

74. but considering that voter outcome has been unprecedented this year

Don't you think that things are different this time?

[emulatorloo]

79. IMHO Trump phenomenon caused GE voters to come out for the Primary.

He was so "out there" polarizing to GOP that people who usually sit out the Primaries came out to vote for/against him.

Our primary was not like that. In that I don't think we are as polarized.

[retrowire]

80. i think Bernie has done the same on our side.

I agree.

[emulatorloo]

81. Yes indeed!

[jberryhill]

82. No, I don't think things are different this year

Nobody was too crazy about Nixon either. How far back do you want to consider things to be "different". Different from what? Different from 2008 when both Michigan and Florida were excluded from participating in the Democratic nomination because they had scheduled their primaries contrary to party rules?

In general, the nomination processes are FAR more democratic than they used to be. The "problem" is that people simply don't turn out for primaries. So, rather than a largely insider process, there is a much more open process which only a relative handful of people bother to participate.

Hubert Humphrey didn't even participate in any primaries, and got the 1968 Democratic nomination. Was that "different"?

In either party, the vice presidential nominee - who is the second in line to become president - gets exactly ONE vote, i.e. that of the nominee. Is that "democratic"?

I imagine that had you been around in 1976 - a point in time in which the president and vice president of the United States were two people for whom NO ONE had ever voted, you'd have gotten the vapors.

[retrowire]

84. you really cant see anything different about 2016?

Trump is actually fucking happening for god sakes. That alone should make your needle twitch. Things are very different this time around.

[jberryhill]

85. Things are "different" pretty much every time through

Were your questions in the OP answered?

32% of registered voters are Democrats and 23% of registered voters are Republicans. Do I expect either 32% of the electorate or 23% of the electorate to consistently come up with a candidate that 51% of the electorate is going to like? No. I can do math.

What "needle" is it that should be twitching? The needle that suggests when you have a minority of a minority of registered voters (i.e. the primary voters of each party) picking the candidates, then it is entirely possible for that handful of people to come up with choices that a majority of registered voters overall don't like?

No, I don't find that surprising in the least. But it's not as if I thought any of the Republican candidates was someone I liked, so the fact that they nominated someone I don't like comes as no surprise to me. I didn't like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush or Bush either. What a shocker, the Republicans nominated an asshole. Again. At least this time they nominated one who is an asshole through-and-through, with no redeeming personal or political qualities whatsoever. Bravo. They got their man.

A solid 20% of the electorate thought W was doing a great job right up until the end of his term.

Is this your first rodeo?

[retrowire]

88. It is my first rodeo actually.

However, I know a bit of history. Trump is like no other, and he's appealing to a mindset that purveys throughout the United States on a major scale.

And I think more people are tired of the same old shit than ever before. To some, the answer to that problem is Trump.

To others, it's Bernie.

But I don't think anyone see's Hillary as a change. They see her as a continuation of Obama, or a return of Bill.

[eggman67]

76. Yes, and that's why this November is going to be weird & unpredictable.

Is it that the primary voter is likely more involved politically?

And the general voter is inclined to only choose the simplified choices left behind by the primary voter?

If so, then with this magical year of 2016 we all have to admit that a gigantic swath of newcomers have entered the fold. And they entered during the primaries, and this election unlike any other has some REALLY high stakes.

Both sides had an influx of new participants, both got the opportunity to expand their tent. On one side they won & therefore expanded their tent with people who now have a reason to show up in November. On the other side they appear to be going to lose keeping the tent pretty much the same & making their new voters' November turnout far less predictable. People talk about Bernie supporters going to Trump, but that's not the concern. The real concern is many of them staying home as they were not Democrats to begin with and have no reason to be Democrats now.

[retrowire]

77. very well said.

There's a lot of new Democrats showing up and thinking, "oh this isn't what the party stands for? I should see my way out?"

[djean111]

13. A somewhat related question - why is it that a few favored groups of people are allowed to dictate

the very small slate of politicians that can affect ALL of our lives, in many ways adversely? And then act like well, you guys had a chance to vote. Oh, and STFU and give us some money.

[retrowire]

18. You talking about superdelegates? nt

[djean111]

32. No. the superdelegate thing reeks, though. And it was invented to keep out candidates like

Bernie. According to Miss DINO herself, DWS.

It just strikes me as odd that basically a relatively few in the two parties decide who the candidate(s) will be, and then the closed primaries really dictate to the entire country who their choice will be for the GE - A or B. It has devolved into being solely about winning, and not about issues at all. It is even accepted that it is really quite okay to lie when campaigning!

Yes, I know this is how it has always been done. But I am feeling so disconnected and repulsed by what I see in Florida, that I will be filing as unaffiliated at the end of August. Seeing how DWS supports her GOP cronies down here in Florida, and does not support liberals and Progressives, is a real eye-opener. And this is before Bernie, nothing to do with Bernie.

More and more, it is like going to a restaurant and being told I must pick one of two dishes, with the expectation that I must choose one. I am going to find another restaurant.

[yawnmaster]

16. Why do you think that is a simple question? eom

[retrowire]

19. it is

Why are the least trusted people winning a contest of favor and trust?

Didn't say the answer was simple.

[yawnmaster]

30. It isn't a simple question. You have defined the contest as one of favor and trust; is that the ...

definition of an election? So there is one factor in your question that can be argued or discussed. Secondly you have as part of the question "least trusted". To whom? To you? To those that are voting for the "least trusted"? So at the very least, this is an undefined part of the question and is another part that can be argued. Finally, you are relating trusted people with a contest of trust (whether it is a contest of trust is arguable, as stated above), yet you throw in a second factor, favor. What is the relationship between trust and favor?

If one can argue points of the question itself, it really isn't a simple question and the answer to this type of question will be left quite murky.

[potone]

39. The answer IS simple...

it is because of the insane way that we go about electing a president. Watch the John Oliver show in which he explains how the primaries work; it is hard to imagine a worse system. We could do better if someone just stood at the top of a staircase and threw a ballot for each candidate down the stairs and whichever one landed at the bottom was declared the victor.

The entire system needs to be redesigned from scratch, but it won't happen because states are in charge of their primary/caucus processes.

If we got rid of the Electoral College and had a direct national vote for president that would remove one part of the problem, at least. We might have a chance of doing that.

[PufPuf23]

26. The political system in the USA and it is hard to be a representitive democracy when

the representatives champion the wants of wealth, power, empire, and special interests over the wants of the people they suppose to represent.

This is not a very sustainable situation and is maintained politically by incumbents and a closed system of politics the farther one gets from the grassroots.

Politics in the USA is dysfunctional at present. We are a danger to other people and the Earth.

[highprincipleswork]

28. Simple answer - BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!

[retrowire]

37. bingo and a high five. nt

[PDittie]

38. BINGO

[restorefreedom]

58. ding. ding. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

122. This.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Most people don't vote in the primaries, even those registered with the respective parties

then there is what the choices are for those who do show up.

The structure also helps make sure options are eliminated before most people can weigh in so a relatively small group always does the real picking which may bear little resemblance to the actual will of the electorate.

[George II]

41. Neither are on the ballot - unfavorable nor untrustworthy, and both are highly subjective....

....particularly in how the question is posed to those being polled.

[dana_b]

46. Because the system is rigged against "upstarts"

Like Bernie who enter the race and continue to fight. Because of Citizens United we have many corporations speaking out and having their very influential say in this election. If you were a corporation, who would you pick? Trump, Clinton or Sanders?

The average voter has some say but the corporations vote with thier very large donations. And then the SuperDelegate system gives certain people the vote of 10,000 of us. Rigged. I know that all of this is legal and in the rules - It doesn't make it right or fair. Rigged.

[retrowire]

50. exactly. nt

[TwilightZone]

62. A career politician is, by definition, not an upstart.

He's not an outsider, either. He's been in one of the most exclusive clubs in the country for a couple of decades now.

He's had those same couple decades to make the kind of political connections and create the kind of political infrastructure that a national campaign requires to be successful.

He's been in the system for more than 20 years. For him to now claim that he didn't know how the system works is disingenuous, at best.

[Garrett78]

49. Independents aren't who you think they are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

[retrowire]

54. still have no way of knowing which way they lean

And with the Republican candidates breaking primary voting records and not Democrats, I'm worried about that.

[Garrett78]

57. Did you read the article?

If so, you're a very fast reader. We do know where they lean. That was the point of the article. In fact, "independents" lean more strongly toward one party or the other than did strong partisans a few decades ago.

As to your last point, "Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election."

[retrowire]

60. and yet, this election is like none other before.

History repeats itself.

In what way or rhythm? We won't know until we pass it by.

[Zorra]

51. So why is it, that the two leading nominees of both parties

have the highest unfavorability and highest untrustworthy ratings?

This is normal in any idiocracy.

[NCTraveler]

52. You don't get to tell me it's because more people showed up for her!!!

I won't listen to common sense!!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. Revealed preference counts for more than declared preference. N.T.

[TwilightZone]

55. I find it curious that supporters of a candidate who has spent most of the campaign insisting that

the will of the people should prevail are now ready to throw out the entire system based on a few head-to-head polls before the primaries are even over. Polls that include a candidate who has barely been vetted in any meaningful manner.

It boggles the mind.

[retrowire]

56. curious? this is the will of the people. no confusion needed. nt

[jberryhill]

91. It was also the will of the people to elect Hitler

The belief that democracy itself somehow produces "good results" is not true in all instances, or even most instances.

If you look at things this country has accomplished in the arena of advancing human rights, none of them were directly the result of elections. Slavery was ended as a consequence of war. Schools were desegregated by a decision of judges who are not elected by the people. The list goes on and on. "Democracy" and the "will of the people" do not somehow automagically translate into "the correct result" as measured by some yardstick of advancement of human potential.

Given the opportunity to vote on the question, it would still not be legal to have inter-racial marriage in much or even most of the country.

The major historical trend in the primary process is that it is much more democratic than it used to be.

[retrowire]

92. Can you fully accept the idea that Superdelegates are a democratic thing though? nt

[jberryhill]

98. Moreso than the convention that nominated Humphrey, yes

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, primary voters are not necessarily representative of the sentiment of a majority of voters, or even a majority of voters registered within one party or the other.

So, right now, seeing how an out-of-the-box candidate like Trump can motivate a shitload of nutbars to show up and vote for him (and by having a field of candidates that split the remaining vote), I'll bet the Republicans are wishing they had superdelegates about now. The superdelegate mechanism was intended to avoid just that sort of problem.

One of your assumptions seems to be that the parties should use "democratic" mechanisms to nominate their candidates. I guess that is a reflection on just how democratic the party nomination processes - which historically have been anything BUT democratic - have become.

Once again - when Humphrey was nominated, he did not have a SINGLE primary vote. None. Zip. Nada.

The first time that primaries really mattered much at all was 1976. And, I'm guessing that to you, that seems like a long time ago. A few decades from now, you'll feel differently about that. But a majority of D voters didn't want Carter as the nominee then either, as he had only 40% of the primary vote.

My choices have been:

1976 - Jerry Brown
1980 - Jimmy Carter
1984 - John Glenn, then Gary Hart
1988 - Joe Biden, then Gary Hart
1992 - Jerry Brown
1996 - Bill Clinton
2000 - Al Gore
2004 - John Kerry
2008 - Joe Biden, then Barack Obama
2012 - Barack Obama
2016 - Bernie Sanders

And, Mr. Retrowire, if that is your real name, you can even verify that:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=John+Berryhill&cycle=2016&sort=R&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=&submit=Submit+Query

My thoughts at this point? "Oh well, my preferred candidate does not seem to be winning the nomination." It doesn't feel any different from any previous cycle where that happened.

The reason you think it is "different" is that while you may be capable of "reading history", you do not by "reading history" become a participant in the passion of that history.

Write this one down: "This is the most important election of your lifetime." Just write that down, keep it in your wallet, and pay yourself a dollar every time you hear that during an election. I guarantee you it will work out better than any retirement investment you might choose. In the meantime, start taking good care of your body early, and use sunscreen. Most importantly - MOISTURIZE. I guarantee you that over the course of your lifetime, whomever might be elected to what, you'll do better if you moisturize.

So, oh my, the Republicans are nominating an unstable madman as their candidate. Yes, well, they've done that twice before, notably with Nixon and Reagan, the latter of which was, in my opinion, every bit the unstable madman as Trump. I see very little difference between them. Also, in 2008, the GOP was perfectly capable of supporting a remarkably insane woman as the VP candidate who, in some parallel universe, is currently presiding over what is left of the United States.

So, no, I don't see anything remarkably "different" or "undemocratic" this time around, no.

[retrowire]

116. Thank you for being thorough and communicative with me.

Your advice is not ignored by this young newcomer.

[jberryhill]

121. Eight years from now, no matter what

You'll be living in the body you make out of what you start eating tomorrow.

[B Calm]

59. Before the first vote was cast in Iowa, Hillary had over a 500 super delegate lead. She was crammed

down our throats by the Oligarchy we call the DNC.

[retrowire]

61. How anyone can sit there and think this is not corrupt or odd at all

Really befuddles me. Seriously.

[B Calm]

63. I hear you! This whole primary has been a sham

from the get go.

[alc]

67. "trust" is not the same as "trust to be their next leader."

Don't read too much into "trust" and "likability" responses. "Will candidate X be the best president over the next 4 years?" is the question that matters.

I trust Cruz and Santorum to do what they say. No way I want any of it but I trust them when they say they believe something.

I like Ben Carson and Rand Paul. They seem thoughtful and nice. I may may be able to like Carly and Kasich on a personal level from what they've accomplished and they also seem nice most of the time. There's a good chance I'd like hanging out with any of them.

I don't really trust Hillary. I think wall street will have more influence than she claims. I think she's lied about the server and foundation and speeches and sniper fire - and I don't like people who I think lie about big and small things. I can't imagine hanging out with Hillary - it may be different than I assume but I don't think we'd like each other on a personal level. But I believe she'll be a much better president than many people I mentioned who I trust or like more than her.

[retrowire]

68. then what about "favorability" ratings? nt

[emulatorloo]

83. Favorabilty ratings = Who would you like to have a beer with?

That's oversimplifying of course.

[yolla331]

71. I agree. The process has been completely rigged.

Not one single primary was determined be clean.

Clinton fails to realize several things

1) Many are tired of the same old bullshit that they have been fed for over 35 years and,
2) Many left the Democratic Party because they saw it was shifting to the right and has kept going there, even today.
3) Many of the voters were just learning about Bernie, many still love and agree with him. What's more, there's already Clinton buyers remorse. You will never get one with the Sanders. I'm a proud Sanders supporter, and will stay with him until the end of the convention, then I will be working with the United Progressive Party to promote Bernie Democrats while we build up for 2018.

[BootinUp]

75. The day we nominate based solely on that criterion

would be a sad day indeed. Instead, I encourage you to question why the polls are that way. Is it or is it not true that Clinton's popularity has been affected by a tremendous disinformation campaign? Is it or is not true that disinformation will be used against anyone we nominate?

[retrowire]

89. There's disinformation on all sides. ALL SIDES.

That's the nature of the beast. What it comes down to though, is how much is true?

For Hillary, there's scores and scores of videos, and documentation showing all kinds of crap. Sure there's made up shit, but she's far from being a clean candidate.

Trump is the same, but for SOME FUCKING REASON, he's immune?! I dunno.

[BootinUp]

93. He may look immune in May but he's not.

I think you may find my post here enlightening:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512044235

[retrowire]

94. I hope this is right if she wins the primary.

But pundits have been ALL KINDS OF WRONG this election, and I think we can both agree on that.

[anotherproletariat]

78. I think the reason has a lot to do with the huge increase in people getting information from the

internet and the 24 hour cable networks. Even since 2008 (the last major shift in our government), these influences have grown massively. Any rumor, true or not, spreads instantly, and people use them to further their own cause. In Trumps case, his own words spread and come back to haunt him.

Bottom line though, is that these are the two candidates, and now it is time to see if democracy still works in the era of instantaneous, mass communication.

Should be interesting.

[B Calm]

87. Wrong, there are three candidates not two.

[anotherproletariat]

97. You do realize that Sanders already conceded, right?

By accepting fewer platform committee positions than Clinton, he admitted that he had lost, and that as the second place finisher, he didn't deserve the same number of committee appointments as the winner. If he truly thought that he was going to get the nomination, this would not have been the case.

[retrowire]

90. We also, in this day and age, have the ability to do instantaneous fact checking.

Rumors don't last as long as they used to.

[AgingAmerican]

86. It's what closed primaries get you

Crap candidates. On the Democratic side it gets you whatever the DNC dictates. On the GOP side it gets you Trump.

[bravenak]

101. She got more votes and we will not let you nullify ours just because you think you know better

[Tal Vez]

102. It's an important question. I believe that an important part of the answer is that

this country is deeply divided and is awash in communications. The upshot is that anyone who finds themselves in the position of representing one side or the other is a huge target and is almost certain to wind up with huge negatives in a very short period of time.

[virtualobserver]

106. Perhaps the best political question that I have ever seen.

So why is it, that the two leading nominees of both parties have the highest unfavorability and highest untrustworthy ratings?

It is the result that you get when the system is rigged.

They own the flow of information. They control the systems of voting.

[jpmonk91]

107. Because

The 2 parties are acting like nazis and suppressing the vote so independents won't have a say in the election. Most people identify as independent and can't vote in the primaries. Either that or they are cheating the machines

[Demsrule86]

109. Obviously

Bernie is less favored or he would have won the primary.

[retrowire]

110. not that simple. nt

[Chan790]

111. Abandonment of the commons.

Basically, not only are both parties polarized...they're largely hostile to the interests of the independent middle, substituting what they think should be the interests and concerns of the independents for the actual interests of those independents.

This isn't going to be a popular opinion, but if Democrats want to seize the reins of control at all levels, they don't just have to improve their local campaigning. They also have to listen better...and make overtures to show they're actually listening.

I can think of none better than banning closed primaries and declaring themselves the party of the commons over the party of the establishment.

[retrowire]

112. I hope we're moving in the right direction. nt

[larkrake]

113. Corporate influence has convinced us we have no choice

[Recursion]

114. Thucydides wrote about this, as did Plato (it's hardly a new problem for democracies)

Honestly this season makes me favor bringing back the smoke-filled rooms...

[retrowire]

115. smoke filled rooms? educate me! nt

[Recursion]

117. Back in the day the nominee was selected by the party apparatus

There might be some primaries here or there, but they weren't viewed (at the time) as what decided the nomination, just more data the party bosses could use. These party bosses met in rooms, and were all fat white guys who smoked cigars, so the image of the decision coming out of a "smoke-filled room" was born and used by people who wanted to open the nomination process up to voters more.

I know, I know: "party boss" sounds awful, though mostly because it reminds people of a particular time in urban Democratic politics. The more positive way of looking at it is that the activists who actually do the day-to-day work of running and maintaining the party got to decide

1. What issues their coalition was going to focus on, and
2. What candidate could best make the case for those issues.

[retrowire]

118. Oh, I was expecting something about rooms actually being filled with smoke lol

Thank you either way!

[Recursion]

119. Oh, like the papal enclave? That would be kind of awesome

I can just see Wolf Blitzer straining to see the color of the smoke coming out of the Philadelphia Convention Center...

[retrowire]

120. HAHAHAHA good one. XD nt