Who will challenge Trump? Who you like?

[thollandpe]

It's been a long time since either major party has nominated anyone whom I could actually endorse and I doubt that they ever will in my lifetime.

There were 33 choices available for me to make. I understand that level of choice is not available in every state in this union. But there is still a choice.

I also understand that the ability to make that choice is a privilege, and something that sets us apart from many other places on this planet. And with privilege comes responsibility.

You don’t get that?

[ericpmoss]

I can understand that in a contest between candidates vying to be the most "center", whatever the heck that really means, that voting seems too much like approval. But here we have everything from super-progressive to right-wing nationalist. There is a clear choice -- maybe not the exact mix of policy and personality one wants, but there are stark differences, and if you really really don't want the one, you better vote for the other, or you are stuck with the worst.

[theflashunc]

Gotta be on the field to play the game, so to speak.

If we believe that politicians are fundamentally craven animals who will debase themselves for power by supplicating to a constituency, then why let it be the lunatics who show up at the polls every time?

There is no "I'd go vote if you did x,y,z you can write on a ballot." They cater to the attitudes and opinions of people who vote.

We get the government we deserve through the participation, or lack thereof, of all of us.

[BBB]

Australia has compulsory voting. Actually it's compulsory attendance at voting. There's no compulsion to actually vote formally, you just have to get your name marked off to say you voted.

I get the argument that if you don't vote for change you shouldn't bitch about things not changing. But on the other side of the coin, we've seen the rise of One Nation (a party of racist incomprehensible morons if you are looking for the highlights) because a formal protest vote has to go somewhere. They are what you get when both option A & B are shite, and you want to let them know you know they are shite. I would prefer that One Nation got no support and 25% of votes cast were informal. That's what they call it here when you write " d - none of the above" and pick that. Or draw a dick. Or whatever.

Yes that's right, it is compulsory attendance. You also have to put the ballot papers in the boxes too (whether or not you cast a vote or suggested unkind things about a candidate's parentage on the ballot paper).

Not voting is a form of protest given we are forced to vote in Oz (or at least forced to attend to vote). Still, the last two elections in Australia have been very close and voting is probably a good idea given the relatively even split in the electorate.

We also do not have direct election of our Prime Minister in Australia. Rather we have preferential voting for seats and the party or parties with a majority of seats is then able to form government. The Prime Minister or Opposition Leader (or presumptive Prime Minister elect) is chosen internally within the two main parties well ahead of any election and hence you do know who will (or won't be) Prime Minister when you cast your vote.

It's weird, but it generally works.

[bcm119]

The silver lining of Bloomberg's campaign seems to be a demonstration that buying the election isn't really a thing.

[choke]

There were 33 choices available for me to make. I understand that level of choice is not available in every state in this union. But there is still a choice.

I also understand that the ability to make that choice is a privilege, and something that sets us apart from many other places on this planet. And with privilege comes responsibility.

You don’t get that?

I get what you're saying, but I don't feel that everyone has to exercise that privilege. I certainly understand why many don't.

In the primary in my state one generally has to be registered as member of the party to vote for that party candidate, so that number of choices is more limited than was yours, as you indicated can happen. But even then, out of those 33 people, there is only one candidate from the D or R list whom I could (somewhat) support with a good conscience and that candidate has zero chance of being on the ballot in November, so it's still not really much of a choice. That means that there is very little incentive for me to vote in the primary.....and come November it is certain that neither the D or R candidate will be someone I can support. Sure, I can vote for the candidate from a small party in Nov but it doesn't accomplish much and according to some that is an abdication of my responsibilities.

Due to our two strong major parties and no viable third party, it's no wonder that many people feel like there's no reason to vote. It often comes down to picking the lessor of two evils, but the lessor is still evil. It's hard to work up a desire to vote for someone you despise.

In regards to your question about 'sleazy criminals' directed at King of Dirk, I don't know enough about all of those people to judge each and every one. But there are at least seven people on that list whom I feel are qualified to hold that title.

[JJohnson]

The silver lining of Bloomberg's campaign seems to be a demonstration that buying the election isn't really a thing.

I can't wait for Donald Trump and the Dem nominee to each spend upwards of $1billion on ads leading up to November. I can't wait to be bombarded by political ads from every direction.

[Scott G.]

The silver lining of Bloomberg's campaign seems to be a demonstration that buying the election isn't really a thing.

Published before Super Tuesday....
Note: that should have been a $1M bill.

CoverStory-story_blitt_Bloomberg.jpg

[zachateseverything]

I get what you're saying, but I don't feel that everyone has to exercise that privilege. I certainly understand why many don't.

In the primary in my state one generally has to be registered as member of the party to vote for that party candidate, so that number of choices is more limited than was yours, as you indicated can happen. But even then, out of those 33 people, there is only one candidate from the D or R list whom I could (somewhat) support with a good conscience and that candidate has zero chance of being on the ballot in November, so it's still not really much of a choice. That means that there is very little incentive for me to vote in the primary.....and come November it is certain that neither the D or R candidate will be someone I can support. Sure, I can vote for the candidate from a small party in Nov but it doesn't accomplish much and according to some that is an abdication of my responsibilities.

Due to our two strong major parties and no viable third party, it's no wonder that many people feel like there's no reason to vote. It often comes down to picking the lessor of two evils, but the lessor is still evil. It's hard to work up a desire to vote for someone you despise.

In regards to your question about 'sleazy criminals' directed at King of Dirk, I don't know enough about all of those people to judge each and every one. But there are at least seven people on that list whom I feel are qualified to hold that title.

such is life with a first past the post method of determining the winner of an election. A third party candidate can only play spoiler in this situation.

I won't go so far as to say that someone who chooses not to vote loses their right to complain about the state of things. I'm a liberal living in a state that leans right and is heavily gerrymandered. I have limited influence on state wide elected positions and am often presented with a single choice for other positions. I like my congressional rep well enough, but the GOP often won't even bother nominating a candidate to run against her. Voting can often feel like shouting into the void.

However, I would caution that opinions without action never accomplish anything. Voting is about the easiest direct action someone can take to influence our government/society but if someone is otherwise engaged in their community or pushing for change/reform I wouldn't begrudge them for sitting the election out.

[bigbill]

I hope the democrats tread lightly with Bernie Sanders. If Biden continues his momentum, Sanders' fired up base might turn off and the democrats need that demographic to win. With the dropout of Klobuchar and Buttigieg, there aren't any candidates to take votes from Biden, I think this sends Sanders towards martyrdom. His party is denying him again even though Biden has the greatest chance of beating Trump. If the democrats handle this poorly (again), I think some voters will stay home. I'm in AZ, we haven't had our say yet.

[mzilliox]

I can't wait for Donald Trump and the Dem nominee to each spend upwards of $1billion on ads leading up to November. I can't wait to be bombarded by political ads from every direction.

think of all the good the money spent on this stupid shit could do for the world? we are doomed until that changes.

[gregl]

think of all the good the money spent on this stupid shit could do for the world? we are doomed until that changes.

Regardless of your political leaning, I suggest that there are three things that must happen to return government to the citizens:

1) Campaign finance reform. Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott.
2) End gerrymandering.
3) If the first two don't end "politics as a career," then amend the Constitution to put term limits on the Senate and House of Representatives.

Stepping off soapbox now...

Greg

[monadnocky]

Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott.

Yes. Yes it was, and I think it will go down in history as such.

[Blue Jays]

Mayor Bloomberg is poised for a rebound!

[Matthew Strongin]

In regards to your question about 'sleazy criminals' directed at King of Dirk, I don't know enough about all of those people to judge each and every one. But there are at least seven people on that list whom I feel are qualified to hold that title.

I'm curious which seven and why? Honest question. I'm interested in learning more about other's thoughts on the various candidates. Thanks!

[megapope]

Sanders' fired up base might turn off ... I think some voters will stay home.

absolutely. if biden is the nominee his supporters may well come to that realization too late to have done anything about it. imagine if the republican party had nominated ted cruz or Jeb! in 2016 out of sheer distaste for trump. i would have preferred that to happen in terms of preserving civility in politics but hillary would also have won an election against any other candidate but trump

2016 should have been a revelation for the democratic establishment that nothing is owed them and a dedicated base that is genuinely excited for a candidate can upset the coronation of a career politician. now they'll try it again, saying "you bastards had better get in line this time around, you saw what happened last time you didn't." well i'm not so sure that I intend to reward that sort of thinking. perhaps i'll say well, tough luck, if you wanted my vote you ought to have given me something to vote for.

people like to vote for something, not just against the other guy. you saw that with trump. the only compelling argument for biden is that he isn't trump. sanders and warren both promise real, material improvements for their constituents and, by some miracle, both also manage to be not trump.

[JJohnson]

I hope the democrats tread lightly with Bernie Sanders. If Biden continues his momentum, Sanders' fired up base might turn off and the democrats need that demographic to win. With the dropout of Klobuchar and Buttigieg, there aren't any candidates to take votes from Biden, I think this sends Sanders towards martyrdom. His party is denying him again even though Biden has the greatest chance of beating Trump. If the democrats handle this poorly (again), I think some voters will stay home. I'm in AZ, we haven't had our say yet.

I'm struggling to find a reason to vote for Biden other than, "Well, he's not Trump," and that's exactly what he's running on... I want change, not more of the same. I'll go vote for down ballot and probably just tick the "not Trump" box, but jesus why...

[Matthew Strongin]

WaPo updated their quiz for seeing which candidates you agree with most to just the remaining candidates (as of yesterday) and their latest positions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...grees-with-me/

Since most of us don't completely fall in line with every position of a given candidate, it continues to be an interesting way to see how we align with those in the race. I'm now tied for both Biden and Warren and Bernie is just a point back. I guess my vote will come down to which of the 20 issues surveyed matter most to me.

[theflashunc]

I hope the democrats tread lightly with Bernie Sanders. If Biden continues his momentum, Sanders' fired up base might turn off and the democrats need that demographic to win. With the dropout of Klobuchar and Buttigieg, there aren't any candidates to take votes from Biden, I think this sends Sanders towards martyrdom. His party is denying him again even though Biden has the greatest chance of beating Trump. If the democrats handle this poorly (again), I think some voters will stay home. I'm in AZ, we haven't had our say yet.

It's not his party though. He's an independent cosplaying as a Democrat because of the first-past-the-post system we have. He's done wonders for engaging the young portion of the electorate, but the Super Tuesday results show across the board outside his core base he's done little to expand voter interest in him. Hell, he performed worse in Vermont this time than he did in 2016.

After the 2016 convention, the Sanders camp had say in both the party platform and in the nominating rules for the 2020 election, including changes to the delegate and super delegate system. While it will happen if he loses, it's tough to credibly play the victim when you had a say in creating the rules of the game being played.

[HorsCat]

His party is denying him again even though Biden has the greatest chance of beating Trump. If the democrats handle this poorly (again), I think some voters will stay home. I'm in AZ, we haven't had our say yet.

The notion that the Democratic Party is "denying" Sanders the nomination is hogwash. People are voting. More people - especially people of color - are voting for Biden than Sanders. If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, it will be because more people wanted someone else.