what does bill say to hillary after sex?

hi reddit

It's cute that you guys think I'd ever allow a third party to be viable. That will never happen. And it's not just me, it's the entire system. We've set up the system so that there can only ever be the two existing parties. While we don't agree on much, we will always agree to preserve our existence and prevent any third party from having a seat at the table.

my bets are looking better by the day while cruz & sanders gains momentum

What's the easiest way to put $5k action online from the US?

For 50 years, Kansas has chosen the democratic nominee with 100% accuracy. Bernie Sanders just won Kansas with an all-time record high voter turnout.

And here's a reality check. Only 21% of delegates have been assigned. Bernie is only behind by 4.7% of the assigned delegates, and Clinton just peaked in the south, she's doing worse everywhere else. Superdelegates always vote for the winner of the popular vote in the end.

They're counting the superdelegates, who will switch and vote for Sanders if he wins the popular vote. It's a despicable way to sway the vote for the party insider favorite, almost as undemocratic as republican gerrymandering. Clinton is only 4.7% ahead with the assigned delegates, and Sanders stands a good chance of pulling ahead and pulling off the greatest upset in US political history.

this +1 , that post from professional is a little telling. but do your thing what ever that is.

Yes, it tells you what CBS News is reporting.

For even money bets, you can write it as either -100 or +100, it's the same thing.

Bribe Hillary.

It's what almost all the media are reporting, and the DNC has skewed elections toward their insider pick this way since superdelegates were invented. The real race is for the assigned delegates, but many people don't understand the superdelegate system and will go with who they perceive as the favorite so as not to waste their vote.

Obama overcame Clinton's superdelegate 'fix' in 2008 and shocked the party establishment. It may happen again. So far, Sanders is outperforming Obama at the same point in the race.

puh-lease, not this silly argument.

if you live in a clearly red, or blue, state, you are throwing away your vote just as much, since we already know who is going to get all of the electoral college votes from that state anyway.

If you believe in a candidate, that is who you should vote for, even if you are sure they won't win. Because the more votes they get this time, the more likely they, and/or their party, is to succeed the next time. If everybody who believed in the Libertarian party were to vote for the L candidate this time, they would probably get at least twice as many votes as otherwise, and then next time, twice as many again, etc. Maybe in a few cycles they would be there with a real shot. If you prefer the current parties, go ahead and vote as you believe. If you think they're both crap, vote for somebody else, whomever is most appealing to you.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

^^^^^
US may be the only western democracy with only two parties in government, each occasionally changing who is on top. Such a system breeds corruption and a synergy between both parties to keep incumbents in power, crony capitalist donors enriched, and third-party movements and challenges to the status quo suppressed.

TRUMP/Sanders 2016 Independent Run
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN ... FOR THE PEOPLE!!

Why is high voter turnout a good thing for your extrapolation of this pattern? Any historical pattern, regardless of how spurious in the first place, gets only ever more spurious when circumstances change.

The reason for the two-party system is the first-past-the-post voting system. If you want more parties, you should spend your energy advocating for something like an instant runoff voting system, rather than trying to prop up useless corpses like the Libertarian Party. Until the voting system changes, you're doomed with two big tent parties in the long run, no matter what name these two big tent parties have.

In this case, by all accounts, a higher turnout helps Sanders and hurts Clinton.

It may help him in Kansas, but unless that turnout can be sustained in other states, it just makes Kansas an outlier, and thus break the relationship between past Kansas results and past national results (not that I put any stock in that relationship to begin with, it seems like the typical survivorship bias bull**** that people desperately cling on to).

I'm not desperate about any of this. I'm enjoying the spectacle. It's the most fascinating election cycle of my lifetime.

There are structural reasons for this, it's not just because it's America - look up Duverger's law.

Proportional representation is worse and just leads to a ton of government in almost all cases.

FWIW, you can find places that have first past the post AND more than two parties. (Canada says Hi!)

In the US, the two party thing seems to be part of your DNA. It starts with this bizarre business where you can declare a party affiliation when you register to vote. I mean, WTF?? Granted, you can affiliate with parties other than the Republicans and Democrats, but I have no idea why you'd want people to label themselves as being with one party or another - I think we already have enough of a problem (not just in the US) with people positioning themselves on one side or the other of the political spectrum, never to be swayed regardless of what happens. I don't see any good coming of encouraging such a mindset.

And don't even get me started with sheriffs, clerks, and judges (?!?!?!) running under a political party.

I declared independent, which means that I can't vote in any primary.

i dont think parties is the issue. you can have 20 parties, it wouldnt matter if there all corrupt. the internet has changed things and this is the beginning. fox and cnn dont have the strong hold on information that goes out to the public that they once had. that is why your seeing support for trump ( as misinformed as it may be) and bernie sanders. the only problem with the internet is you guide yourself and some peoples selves are not capable.

also this is why net-neutrality is so important.

Canada is a parliamentary system. Those by their nature can easily accommodate multiple parties. We have a presidential republic, and there is no practical way of changing that.