Sanders Smokes Clinton In Alaska And Washington

[Bryce]

A lot of people just don't like HilLIEry.

Washington:
Sanders - 72.7%
Clinton - 27.1%

Hawaii:
Sanders - 81.6%
Clinton - 18.4

Pretty jaw dropping numbers.

[audiophile]

Those are caucuses, so here is the overall results:

Bernie +55 delegate
Clinton +20 delegates

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html

[Bryce]

When you consider a relatively unknown Senator, who accomplished nothing in his life except getting elected to office, beat a "Clinton" by those margins, it says something about how even many Democrats perceive her. Either that or people are attracted to the promise of "free stuff".

If the latter is the case, the Democrat party has sure changed a lot since:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

[audiophile]

When you consider a relatively unknown Senator, who accomplished nothing in his life except getting elected to office, beat a "Clinton" by those margins, it says something about how even many Democrats perceive her. Either that or people are attracted to the promise of "free stuff".

If the latter is the case, the Democrat party has sure changed a lot since:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Many Democrats pander to LCD (Lowest Common Denominator), but now they have went over the top, now it's LSD...

[Deleted User 8570]

When you consider a relatively unknown Senator, who accomplished nothing in his life except getting elected to office, beat a "Clinton" by those margins, it says something about how even many Democrats perceive her. Either that or people are attracted to the promise of "free stuff".

If the latter is the case, the Democrat party has sure changed a lot since:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Yes it sure has... About 5 years after that a major party realignment occurred and words like that eventually became Republican talking points... Democrats began talking like those old leftist Republicans...

Caucuses work for Sanders because he can get enough motivated supporters to the caucus sites, she blows him out in primaries....

[Bryce]

Many Democrats pander to LCD (Lowest Common Denominator), but now they have went over the top, now it's LSD...

We see the same thing happening on the Republican side.

Think about this for a bit. The framers were a pretty smart group. At the time of the founding, they included language that insured that the people voting would be people that were well informed. Today, when more people are aware of who Kim Kardashian is than can tell you what the three branches of government are, much less the difference between command, market and traditional economic systems, maybe there should be some kind of bar to ensure a well informed voter.

I know, I know, all you leftist progressives are going to scream racism and sexism over the "white, male landowner over 21" thing. Easy to do on its face, but if you look to the original intent and apply it to the time, (something the left NEVER does when it comes to the COTUS) it had nothing whatsoever to do with keeping women or minorities down and everything to do with ensuring a well informed voting population.

Instead of taking the easy way out of this argument, like a Sharpton or Jackson, and play a race or sex card, take a more difficult road. Explain why we, our country, wouldn't be better off with a well informed voter? Just look at the video Audio posted a few days ago when Sanders voters we asked basic questions. Do you really think our country is in good hands with these folks voting? The same can be said about many of the T Rump supporters.

[Deleted User 8570]

Many Democrats pander to LCD (Lowest Common Denominator), but now they have went over the top, now it's LSD...

We see the same thing happening on the Republican side.

Think about this for a bit. The framers were a pretty smart group. At the time of the founding, they included language that insured that the people voting would be people that were well informed. Today, when more people are aware of who Kim Kardashian is than can tell you what the three branches of government are, much less the difference between command, market and traditional economic systems, maybe there should be some kind of bar to ensure a well informed voter.

I know, I know, all you leftist progressives are going to scream racism and sexism over the "white, male landowner over 21" thing. Easy to do on its face, but if you look to the original intent and apply it to the time, (something the left NEVER does when it comes to the COTUS) it had nothing whatsoever to do with keeping women or minorities down and everything to do with ensuring a well informed voting population.

Instead of taking the easy way out of this argument, like a Sharpton or Jackson, and play a race or sex card, take a more difficult road. Explain why we, our country, wouldn't be better off with a well informed voter? Just look at the video Audio posted a few days ago when Sanders voters we asked basic questions. Do you really think our country is in good hands with these folks voting? The same can be said about many of the T Rump supporters.

And whoever pulls the strings can define well informed voter? You go start a country with those rules, I'll stay here.

[Bryce]

You go start a country with those rules, I'll stay here.

A country was already started with those rules. It's called the United States of America.

[Deleted User 8570]

You go start a country with those rules, I'll stay here.

A country was already started with those rules. It's called the United States of America.

White males over 21 were essentially the only people with any real power in society in general... Not just voting. So the rule is a norm for the time and not so much a well informed voter issue. If it was then you are surely implying they were seen as the only people capable of being responsible with a vote? That's not pulling any kind of card it just strikes me as exactly what you were implying...

[Bryce]

White males over 21 were essentially the only people with any real power in society in general... Not just voting. So the rule is a norm for the time and not so much a well informed voter issue. If it was then you are surely implying they were seen as the only people capable of being responsible with a vote? That's not pulling any kind of card it just strikes me as exactly what you were implying...

Sure, that's an easy knee jerk reaction. One that I expected. If one takes the time to study societal norms of the time, it certainly tells a different story.

First, take a look at the education level of various groups in 1776. American Indians and Blacks had few if any educational opportunities at that time and the illiteracy rates among those groups were extremely high. Second, at this time in our history, women were viewed as subservient to men and not regarded to be well informed. You don't hear to much said about "The Founding Mothers". The literacy rates among white males in the colonies at the time was somewhere between 70 and 90 percent. White male landowners scored close to 100 percent.

Another thing our founders realised is that the U.S. was made up of more than people, but also land mass. Giving weight to land mass was one of the reasons the electoral college was formed for presidential elections. Limiting voting to landowners made perfect sense because landowners were viewed as having a greater long term investment in the future of the new country and were pretty much guaranteed to be literate and well informed.

[Deleted User 8570]

White males over 21 were essentially the only people with any real power in society in general... Not just voting. So the rule is a norm for the time and not so much a well informed voter issue. If it was then you are surely implying they were seen as the only people capable of being responsible with a vote? That's not pulling any kind of card it just strikes me as exactly what you were implying...

Sure, that's an easy knee jerk reaction. One that I expected. If one takes the time to study societal norms of the time, it certainly tells a different story.

First, take a look at the education level of various groups in 1776. American Indians and Blacks had few if any educational opportunities at that time and the illiteracy rates among those groups were extremely high. Second, at this time in our history, women were viewed as subservient to men and not regarded to be well informed. You don't hear to much said about "The Founding Mothers". The literacy rates among white males in the colonies at the time was somewhere between 70 and 90 percent. White male landowners scored close to 100 percent.

Another thing our founders realised is that the U.S. was made up of more than people, but also land mass. Giving weight to land mass was one of the reasons the electoral college was formed for presidential elections. Limiting voting to landowners made perfect sense because landowners were viewed as having a greater long term investment in the future of the new country and were pretty much guaranteed to be literate and well informed.

Right but we've moved on... You know when? The good old days...