When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@parados,

parados wrote:

It doesn't allow for the small candidate that has good credentials but no name recognition to build a following over time.

they can work on their name recognition between election cycles by doing good work in the congress or senate - where it's meaningful

develop credibility by doing instead of talking

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

they can work on their name recognition between election cycles by doing good work in the congress or senate - where it's meaningful

develop credibility by doing instead of talking

Gosh, that sure would be nice wouldn't it!!!! I wish our system worked that way too.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
they can work on their name recognition between election cycles by doing good work in the congress or senate - where it's meaningful

develop credibility by doing instead of talking

Gosh, that sure would be nice wouldn't it!!!! I wish our system worked that way too.

Yeah, it'd be nice if honest politicians (oxymoron?) could get good reputations from quietly doing good. Little detail though: We'd have to get rid of the influence of money and biased media in politics before we could have that situation prevail.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

Many people supporting Sanders have said they will vote for Clinton if she is the dem candidate. I've seen polls showing a vast majority of them will. Let's see.

0 Replies

@parados,

That's a good argument i think. No system is perfect, right? Still, this delegate business is antiquated.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

Little detail though: We'd have to get rid of the influence of money

Sounds like a good idea...

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Little detail though: We'd have to get rid of the influence of money and biased media in politics before we could have that situation prevail.

much shorter election cycles should help with that. with a short cycle, candidates have to provide evidence of what they've actually done instead of counting on time for image development.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

That's a good argument i think. No system is perfect, right? Still, this delegate business is antiquated.

It's still a step up from the system that used to be in place where party bosses chose the candidate and just informed the rest of us who it would be.

1 Reply

@parados,

Yes, it's an improvement. Doesn't mean it can't be further improved.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

snood wrote:
Little detail though: We'd have to get rid of the influence of money and biased media in politics before we could have that situation prevail.

much shorter election cycles should help with that. with a short cycle, candidates have to provide evidence of what they've actually done instead of counting on time for image development.

I'd LOVE us to have a much shorter presidential election cycle - it's be healthier in a myriad of ways...and get rid of the Electoral college...and get rid of Citizen's United...

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

political parties in other countries manage to pick new leaders in days/weeks, why so inefficient in the US?

Just look at all the complaints on these boards about how independents are not allowed to help pick the nominee in all states. I can't imagine what it would be like if only the party members were able to choose.

2 Replies

@parados,

Why should parties members allow non-members to have a say on who the party will run for president?

An yes the system is old but not likely to be change and it had work fairly well for over 200 years.

0 Replies

@parados,

Why would independents have a say in internal party decisions? it makes no sense.

It's like saying I'm your next-door neighbour and decide to wander into your house and decide how your food should be seasoned. beyond inappropriate.

2 Replies

@snood,

when the US reinvented the election process, they made it fussier instead of simpler

it's mind-boggling

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Some states allow Independents to vote in party primaries. Sanders has done well in those primaries. Certain people on here have whined dramatically about Independents not being allowed to vote in primaries in other states.

It makes no sense to you or me but it's the opposite to others.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote ehBeth:

Quote:

much shorter election cycles should help with that. with a short cycle, candidates have to provide evidence of what they've actually done instead of counting on time for image development.

I'm afraid that's out of the question. Bill Maher explains why.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I'm glad ya'll are weeding out the better ones, means I don't have to watch it. It was funny thanks. (glad for the cc too, wonder when they started making sure the cc feature was added to youtubes? )

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Because for a very long time - although this year the percentage numbers have very likely changed - the Democrat and Republican parties court and beg for independents to help them win.

Until very recently, the electorate was 40% Dem, 40% GOP - and whoever won the swing states - delivered with great help from Indies - won the contest.

How soon people seem to forget.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I agree with shorter election cycles as the long ones are excruciating. On the other hand, I agree with a period of getting to review the candidates at some length, so I'd be apt to like a compromise, especially in a big and crowded and multi factional/fractured place as the U.S. No ten day stuff, but the primary wretchedness is overwhelmingly a mix of boring and horrifying. Not to mention that I've never understood Caucuses. Sounds like carcasses. Only semi-kidding.. it seems like delegation multiplied.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

First time I've see the cc button...
a big help. When I first started looking, it was a loud blur.
With the cc thing, it made sense.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know