And here's a part of the problem... those aren't the "three remaining presidential candidates". At the very least any discussion of the presidential election should include Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate who will be, if I understand correctly, on the ballot in all 50 states. Not to mention he's a very popular former governor, whose running mate is also a popular former governor.
OK, look, I understand that Duverger's Law[1] says that our system will tend to favor a "two party system". But there isn't an ironclad law like, say, gravity, in play here. Third party candidates can and do win elections, and excluding them from the conversation just helps perpetuate the existing system.
Unfortunately, in most years, the media seem to try very hard to pointedly ignore/downplay third party candidates. This year is the first I can remember where the LP candidate is getting some serious, mostly non-biased, reasonable media coverage.
"If no candidate for President has a majority of the total votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses the President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, compared to five under the original procedure. "[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now.
When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to.
I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that.
JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career.
Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
Unless you're a 100% pacifist you believe in the use of some violence in some situations. The question then is just how much, and with what standards of proof / need.
Hillary associates with many of the people involved in faking evidence of WMDs. And has refused many calls to label them war criminals. That should make her unacceptable.
Trump associates with many hate groups. That should make him unacceptable.
> If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
You do realize that there can be only one president and most of the game isn't picking the one you want, but the one you think can beat the one the other guys elect?
There's no way the USA would elect someone like Bernie because he doesn't look like he'd push the button. Especially when he has to go up against Trump who is itching to.
> Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better?
America needs voting reform. The Trump/Hillary nonsense taking over the country for two years of every four is most of the problem.
But no, a minority candidate will never win. The system is very good at assuring that, so ultimately any nuanced political discussion is meaningless.
I assume you're using the "aaron-lebo" scale of extremism.
I'm not saying you should support Sanders, I'm saying that disagreement with his positions is substantially different then denying that Trump has said racist things, or insisting that the State Department allowed Clinton to do business on a privately administered email server located in her home after the State Department says that it didn't. You can accept the falseness of both of those claims while still agreeing with Trump and Clinton on policy.
Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump, but corruption can only exist within a system where decent people are either not competent at fighting them or...not that different themselves.
I'm not asking for much. We've had brilliant politicians who have handled much worse crisis. Is Sanders up to the challenge? How so?
We probably aren't going to get anywhere. All I'm asking is that we are willing to question our most deeply held political beliefs. Sometimes we (me, you, everyone else) are wrong.
I'm pretty sure that's all I said. Please stop insisting that I defend Sanders' policies, or assuming that I support him. A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
> Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions.
...which seems unfair to anyone who might criticize him on any other grounds.
> A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
We are in agreement then.
Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.