HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Garrett78 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AM
Number of posts: 10,721

Journal Archives

A Clinton Admin will likely operate more or less the same as the Obama Admin has.

I was prompted to start this thread by reading yet another post that was very pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.

Assuming Clinton becomes POTUS, differences in governance could (and likely will) result from unforeseen events and cultural shifts, and there are always going to be personality (as well as personnel) differences. But for the most part, I fully expect a Clinton Administration to govern the same as the Obama Administration has. *Note: To some, that's a good thing and to others not so much. I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other.

It's important to keep in mind that the POTUS doesn't create systems. The POTUS operates within systems. Systems aren't static, of course, but mass movements are required to alter them. For example, the institution of marriage has experienced shifts, not because of Supreme Court decisions but because of mass movements.

The US is extremely individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality, which results in people vastly overestimating the power and influence of individual actors.

Who are "independents" really? Unbiased, critical thinkers?

First, my own thoughts on so-called "independents":

Some refer to themselves as independent or non-affiliated because they have what they consider to be "middle-of-the-road" positions on various issues. Or because they are 'liberal' on some issues and 'conservative' on others. To be honest, I don't think such folks typically make much sense. They are often folks who fail to see how social and economic issues are linked. Of course, you also have those who fail to see how they are distinct. The truth is they are both linked and distinct--picture a Venn Diagram.

Others refer to themselves as "independent" simply because they think it gives the impression that they are unbiased, critical thinkers, even though they are basically party loyalists (or because they're Libertarians and just don't call themselves that).

And others refer to themselves that way because they're just extremist Republicans--they're disappointed that the Republican Party isn't bringing back slavery and swapping the US Constitution out for the Bible. For instance, I've read that nearly half of Tea Party members refer to themselves as "independent."

Finally, an article on the topic: "The growing myth of the 'independent' voter"

If Clinton wins a clear majority of pledged delegates, does anyone think Sanders will be nominated?

Let's say Clinton leads 2175 to 1876 (a reasonable projection) heading into the convention. Is there anyone here who honestly thinks Sanders will be nominated?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

If so, please provide an example of when such a thing has happened and explain how that occurrence relates to the Clinton-Sanders race.

If not, can we please put an end to all of the irrelevant superdelegate threads?

Bonus question: Does anyone here honestly believe Sanders will end up with 2026 or more pledged delegates? Anyone? Anyone at all?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3