The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
I notice that dumping on Sanders takes up the time you might have spent highlighting HRC's legislative accomplishments, so I'm guessing you haven't turned up any I've overlooked. I get you think 'he's not practical'. That's nice. If you're honest, you'll admit nothing in HRC's past particularly 'fits' her to be president either, so much as said past positions her among the squawking birds who always want power: she has lusted after the presidency with a single-minded drive that few of history's greatest political climbers can match...but that IS NOT A QUALIFICATION.
It was Bob Dole's "turn", once, too. Didn't do him a bit of good, and too bad, he wouldn't have been the worst we've had. HRC is the wrong candidate at the wrong moment in a very crucial time. I'm not out to be mean to her but I don't care if her feelings get hurt: she never gave a shit about my feelings. I can see you have an idea that you know about 'the Berner pulse' but I'm 65 this year and I've been fighting this fight for more than 50 of those.
Looking larger, I really don't want to blow off what you've written, but it's not really on-topic, as I see it. Bernie is every bit as qualified as HRC if not moreso - and none of the other candidates are even that. The question is not as simple-minded as who's practicalest...the very idea of "who can/should lead the country" is vastly bigger than having a Reaganesque bevy of "businessmen" to help loot the public sector, it's more than being able to get elected by hook and by crook, it's less forgiving than controlling the Party machinery, it's a lot bigger than "right-this-minute": what happens this year, this election, will shape this nation for a generation or more...and I'm gonna have to live in the results of that, and I'm REALLY tired of living with the results of timid, safe, chicken-shit choices. I AM NOT INTERESTED in my last 20 years being the worst 20 years in the last 2,000,000, and I don't care whose feelings get hurt because I work for a different outcome.
TL;DR = your remarks imply that you don't actually understand the whole Bernie thing, and that's okay: you could say much the same as above about anyone who never sought national office before, and it would be equally useful.
Don't mean to start a fight with you, I just don't think much of your points...weird, because catching up on this thread, I never thought we'd disagree....
Gunky
Well-Known Member
And if Bernie gets elected and then has the same relationship with politicians left and right that he has had over the last few decades - they humor him on small matters at best and ignore him on anything big - you'll be ok with that because you sent a message loud and clear.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Remember it won't be up to us who gets the nomination to run for prez for each party. The Democrat and the Republican Party decide on who will be the two nominations. The American people will get to vote for a republican or a democrat come November for president.
I don't like this process how it's done without the American people having really any say. These are the rules whether or not we like them Mr. Trump.
The RNC and the DNC already know who they want as presidential candidates. It looks like it's a done deal.
I don't like this process how it's done without the American people having really any say. These are the rules whether or not we like them Mr. Trump.
The RNC and the DNC already know who they want as presidential candidates. It looks like it's a done deal.
Last edited:
Adobewan
Well-Known Member
And if they equally obstruct Hillary?
I'll ask again, not to argue but for genuine enlightenment, what accomplishments of her's make her the absolute choice in your eyes? Was hoping @cybrguy would respond as well being you and he seem to be the most vocal Hillary supporters.
You might bring people over to your camp.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Right now democrats in congress humor Bernie on small things and ignore him on big things. On the other hand they support Hillary and have mostly endorsed her. So one of these two candidates would come into office with the support of her party, ready to hit the ground running. The other candidate, Bernie, gets the united opposition of the republicans (he is a socialist, for pete's sake. They've been damning Obama as a socialist for eight years and he isn't even really a socialist) and skepticism or opposition from dems. Do I have to draw a diagram? The dems do not now offer much support for Bernie's policies. What makes you think if he is elected they will suddenly all change to the Bernie persuasion? It's wishful thinking and a gross misunderstanding of how our government works. Bernie has explained this part with his idea of 'revolution'. Apparently in practice that is supposed to mean first elect him and then replace everybody else! What could go wrong with that? Clinton has the full support of her party for the areas where she cannot work alone and vastly more experience in the things that a president can do without congressional assistance like foreign policy.
Hillary's accomplishments are too many to list here. If you have trouble thinking of some I have to wonder where you have been for the last 20 years. A couple that spring to mind:
-the speech she made about human rights and women's rights on Chinese tv when she was first lady.
-the nuclear deal signed with Iran recently (and fully supported by Bernie) could not have happened without Clinton. She is the diplomat who arranged the very stringent international sanctions on Iran (including China and Russia) which brought it to the table.
Those are just off the top of my head. Nothing Bernie has done is remotely comparable. Well I guess a sparrow did once land on a lectern while he was speaking and then when Bernie forgot it was there and jerked his hand, flew away. Apparently some think that is an important credential though I gather there is something you have to drink before its significance becomes clear...
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I would hope its because being elected would demonstrate the will and wants of the people and particularly the dems. While I expect the repubs to block anything not coming from their party I have higher hopes for the dems. If the dems become just another political party that ignores and blocks the policies that the American people vote for ..... they will have lowered themselves to the level of the repubs AND WORSE since its inter-party. You can be sure that both parties will find themselves playing musical chairs at the next elections and when the music stops they won't find a place to sit. People are tired of the whole road block mentality and it will be especially punishing if the dems play that game since they are held to a higher standard.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
It is important to understand that every elected official says to himself, "I'm here because the people chose me in the last election." They don't say "The people elected so and so prez therefore that trumps what the people of the great state of such and such said when they elected me." Regardless of your opinion of this state of affairs, that is the way things are and likely will always be. Don't expect mainstream dems to wake up the morning after Bernie is elected and say to themselves "Saint Bernie of the Sparrows has now ascended the throne, the people have spoken and I am now a democratic socialist!" It just doesn't work that way. If you are too young to remember the Carter administration you can be forgiven for not getting this point, I suppose, though it would be a shame to make the same mistake again at this moment of historic opportunity. We actually have a shot at giving a unified democratic party control of all three branches for a time. The end of gridlock!
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Could be 'selective perception' on my part but I think if the dems start to eat their own sitting president strictly based on alliances and shenanigans the democratic voters will have reached their limit and "I'm here because the people chose me in the last election." Will change to "I'm not here".
grokit
well-worn member
2016: The Year Americans Found Out Our Elections Are Rigged
“Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. senators and congress members.”
The 2016 election has been a wild ride, with two insurgent grassroots campaigns literally giving the political establishment a run for its money. But as the events of this presidential primary season play out, it’s becoming clear the U.S. election — and even more so, the presidential race — is a big scam being perpetrated on the American people.
Events from the last week have exposed the system as an illusion of choice and a farce. They have reinforced at least one study showing the U.S. is an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.
The Wyoming democratic caucus took place on Saturday, purportedly to allow voters to have their voices heard in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.
Wait, what?
How does one lose by winning 56 percent of the votes? This happens when the political process is, according to the New York Post, “rigged” by superdelegates. The Post summed up this “strange” phenomenon:
Under the Democratic Party’s oddball delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.
In fact, despite his win, he splits Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus.
Clinton, meanwhile, also gets the state’s four superdelegates — who had already pledged their allegiance to her in January. So despite ‘losing,’ she triumphs 11-7 in the delegate tally.
Even media pundits on MSNBC openly called the process rigged:
.@BernieSanders wins WY but @HillaryClinton nets more delegates… @JoeNBC: It is a system rigged against voters https://t.co/C15I9inLAH
Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:
Adding insult to injury, even when Sanders does win states (despite Hillary’s advantage in superdelegates), the media can be reliably counted on to discount Sanders’s wins as nothing more than prolonging the electoral process, which will inevitably elect the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton. This pervasive commentary continues despite the fact Sanders only trails her by several hundred pledged delegates.
Meanwhile, according to the same media, the non-establishment Trump campaign is threatened every time Ted Cruz beats him — even though Trump leads by a larger percentage of pledged delegates than Clinton does. When Clinton loses, it doesn’t matter because she already has the nomination locked up. When Trump loses, his campaign is in big trouble. Starting to see the problem with the media coverage?
When you examine these media narratives, a troubling pattern emerges that goes beyond the political establishment’s self-interest. You begin to see that American corporate media also functions as an arm of the political machine, protecting establishment candidates while attacking — or dismissing — candidates who seem non-establishment.
This brings us to the events that transpired during the Republican nomination process in Colorado on Saturday. The Republican Party of Colorado didn’t even bother letting people vote before using arcane rules to strip the democratic process of its democracy. According to the Denver Post:
Colorado GOP leaders canceled the party’s presidential straw poll in August to avoid binding its delegates to a candidate who may not survive until the Republican National Convention in July.
Instead, Republicans selected national delegates through the caucus process, a move that put the election of national delegates in the hands of party insiders and activists — leaving roughly 90 percent of the more than 1 million Republican voters on the sidelines.
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s non-establishment campaign walked away with zero delegates. They were all “awarded” to Ted Cruz.
“How is it possible that the people of the great State of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican Primary? Great anger — totally unfair!” Trump said on Twitter. “The people of Colorado had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians. Biggest story in politics. This will not be allowed!”
more:
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/2016-the-year-americans-found-out-our-elections-are-rigged.html
“Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. senators and congress members.”
~ Former President Jimmy Carter
The 2016 election has been a wild ride, with two insurgent grassroots campaigns literally giving the political establishment a run for its money. But as the events of this presidential primary season play out, it’s becoming clear the U.S. election — and even more so, the presidential race — is a big scam being perpetrated on the American people.
Events from the last week have exposed the system as an illusion of choice and a farce. They have reinforced at least one study showing the U.S. is an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.
The Wyoming democratic caucus took place on Saturday, purportedly to allow voters to have their voices heard in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.
Wait, what?
How does one lose by winning 56 percent of the votes? This happens when the political process is, according to the New York Post, “rigged” by superdelegates. The Post summed up this “strange” phenomenon:
Under the Democratic Party’s oddball delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.
In fact, despite his win, he splits Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus.
Clinton, meanwhile, also gets the state’s four superdelegates — who had already pledged their allegiance to her in January. So despite ‘losing,’ she triumphs 11-7 in the delegate tally.
Even media pundits on MSNBC openly called the process rigged:
.@BernieSanders wins WY but @HillaryClinton nets more delegates… @JoeNBC: It is a system rigged against voters https://t.co/C15I9inLAH
— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) April 11, 2016
The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:
Meanwhile, according to the same media, the non-establishment Trump campaign is threatened every time Ted Cruz beats him — even though Trump leads by a larger percentage of pledged delegates than Clinton does. When Clinton loses, it doesn’t matter because she already has the nomination locked up. When Trump loses, his campaign is in big trouble. Starting to see the problem with the media coverage?
When you examine these media narratives, a troubling pattern emerges that goes beyond the political establishment’s self-interest. You begin to see that American corporate media also functions as an arm of the political machine, protecting establishment candidates while attacking — or dismissing — candidates who seem non-establishment.
This brings us to the events that transpired during the Republican nomination process in Colorado on Saturday. The Republican Party of Colorado didn’t even bother letting people vote before using arcane rules to strip the democratic process of its democracy. According to the Denver Post:
Colorado GOP leaders canceled the party’s presidential straw poll in August to avoid binding its delegates to a candidate who may not survive until the Republican National Convention in July.
Instead, Republicans selected national delegates through the caucus process, a move that put the election of national delegates in the hands of party insiders and activists — leaving roughly 90 percent of the more than 1 million Republican voters on the sidelines.
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s non-establishment campaign walked away with zero delegates. They were all “awarded” to Ted Cruz.
“How is it possible that the people of the great State of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican Primary? Great anger — totally unfair!” Trump said on Twitter. “The people of Colorado had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians. Biggest story in politics. This will not be allowed!”
more:
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/2016-the-year-americans-found-out-our-elections-are-rigged.html
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Duh...
For Team Sanders, superdelegates aren’t the principal problem
04/13/16 09:20 AM
On the campaign trail the other day, Donald Trump suggested Bernie Sanders is getting a raw deal. “He wins and wins and wins, and I hear he doesn’t have a chance?” an incredulous Trump asked his audience. “This is a crooked system, folks. I couldn’t care less, but he wins, like me.”
The same day, the New York Times published a puzzling paragraph:
Backers of Senator Bernie Sanders, bewildered at why he keeps winning states but cannot seem to cut into Hillary Clinton’s delegate count because of her overwhelming lead with “superdelegates,” have used Reddit and Twitter to start an aggressive pressure campaign to flip votes.
There appears to be some confusion about the state of the race. Sanders has fared well, and won several contests in a row, but at least at this stage in the process, Clinton has won more pledged delegates, more votes, and more states. Just as important is the fact that Clinton has actually won several states with larger populations by wide margins, which explains her significant advantage in the metric that actually decides who wins the presidential nomination.
The role of superdelegates is interesting, and arguably worth keeping an eye on, but they’re not the Sanders campaign’s principal problem. If we were to rank the key hurdles standing between the senator and his goal, superdelegates would actually be fairly low on the list.
Which is why it’s all the more curious that the Washington Post reports that some Sanders boosters have been courting superdelegates so aggressively that some are starting to make claims of “harassment.”
Among those efforts is a website created last week under the name Superdelegate Hit List, providing phone numbers and addresses for superdelegates and encouraging users to submit further contact information, presumably to help advocates pressure them. Site creator Spencer Thayer, a Chicago activist, described the goal this way in a Twitter message: “So who wants to help start … a new website aimed at harassing Democratic Superdelegates?”
I can imagine a situation in which Sanders was narrowly leading the race for the nomination, edging Clinton among pledged delegates and votes. That’s not an accurate reflection of what’s actually happening, but I’m describing a hypothetical scenario. And in this hypothetical scenario, let’s say Sanders was narrowly leading the race, but he hadn’t locked down the majority he needed.
At that point, the superdelegates would be of critical importance. These Democratic officials would have the power – again, in this imaginary situation – to either follow the will of the voters who cast ballots in primaries and caucuses, or they could exercise their own judgment. Their collective decision would decide the outcome of the entire race.
Given those conditions, lobbying superdelegates would make a lot of sense. If party officials were prepared to elevate Clinton over Sanders, despite Sanders’ lead among pledged delegates and raw vote totals, an aggressive messaging campaign would be the obvious next move.
But this hypothetical situation is actually the opposite of the currently unfolding circumstances. When the New York Times says Sanders backers believe Clinton is well positioned to prevail “because of her overwhelming lead with ‘superdelegates,’” that’s not quite right. Sanders is, to be sure, trailing badly among superdelegates, but even if these party leaders are removed from the picture altogether, the Vermont senator is nevertheless facing a serious deficit among pledged delegates.
Now, if Sanders’ supporters are leaning on superdelegates, telling them to ignore, and ultimately override, the results of the primaries and caucuses, that would at least make tactical sense (though it probably won’t work as a political strategy). But to see superdelegates as the main obstacle between the senator and the nomination is incorrect.
My point isn’t to criticize spirited activism. What matters here is the best use of these activists’ time, and pressuring superdelegates is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
For Team Sanders, superdelegates aren’t the principal problem
04/13/16 09:20 AM
On the campaign trail the other day, Donald Trump suggested Bernie Sanders is getting a raw deal. “He wins and wins and wins, and I hear he doesn’t have a chance?” an incredulous Trump asked his audience. “This is a crooked system, folks. I couldn’t care less, but he wins, like me.”
The same day, the New York Times published a puzzling paragraph:
Backers of Senator Bernie Sanders, bewildered at why he keeps winning states but cannot seem to cut into Hillary Clinton’s delegate count because of her overwhelming lead with “superdelegates,” have used Reddit and Twitter to start an aggressive pressure campaign to flip votes.
There appears to be some confusion about the state of the race. Sanders has fared well, and won several contests in a row, but at least at this stage in the process, Clinton has won more pledged delegates, more votes, and more states. Just as important is the fact that Clinton has actually won several states with larger populations by wide margins, which explains her significant advantage in the metric that actually decides who wins the presidential nomination.
The role of superdelegates is interesting, and arguably worth keeping an eye on, but they’re not the Sanders campaign’s principal problem. If we were to rank the key hurdles standing between the senator and his goal, superdelegates would actually be fairly low on the list.
Which is why it’s all the more curious that the Washington Post reports that some Sanders boosters have been courting superdelegates so aggressively that some are starting to make claims of “harassment.”
Among those efforts is a website created last week under the name Superdelegate Hit List, providing phone numbers and addresses for superdelegates and encouraging users to submit further contact information, presumably to help advocates pressure them. Site creator Spencer Thayer, a Chicago activist, described the goal this way in a Twitter message: “So who wants to help start … a new website aimed at harassing Democratic Superdelegates?”
I can imagine a situation in which Sanders was narrowly leading the race for the nomination, edging Clinton among pledged delegates and votes. That’s not an accurate reflection of what’s actually happening, but I’m describing a hypothetical scenario. And in this hypothetical scenario, let’s say Sanders was narrowly leading the race, but he hadn’t locked down the majority he needed.
At that point, the superdelegates would be of critical importance. These Democratic officials would have the power – again, in this imaginary situation – to either follow the will of the voters who cast ballots in primaries and caucuses, or they could exercise their own judgment. Their collective decision would decide the outcome of the entire race.
Given those conditions, lobbying superdelegates would make a lot of sense. If party officials were prepared to elevate Clinton over Sanders, despite Sanders’ lead among pledged delegates and raw vote totals, an aggressive messaging campaign would be the obvious next move.
But this hypothetical situation is actually the opposite of the currently unfolding circumstances. When the New York Times says Sanders backers believe Clinton is well positioned to prevail “because of her overwhelming lead with ‘superdelegates,’” that’s not quite right. Sanders is, to be sure, trailing badly among superdelegates, but even if these party leaders are removed from the picture altogether, the Vermont senator is nevertheless facing a serious deficit among pledged delegates.
Now, if Sanders’ supporters are leaning on superdelegates, telling them to ignore, and ultimately override, the results of the primaries and caucuses, that would at least make tactical sense (though it probably won’t work as a political strategy). But to see superdelegates as the main obstacle between the senator and the nomination is incorrect.
My point isn’t to criticize spirited activism. What matters here is the best use of these activists’ time, and pressuring superdelegates is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
The primary process isn't rigged. Donald Trump has received something like 22% more delegates than he would have gotten if there were no winner take all contests. For a small percentage of the vote, he got relatively large numbers of delegates. So he benefited from the process and has no call to complain. Likewise, Bernie supporters are all wet for saying the process is rigged. Clinton has received 2.4 million more votes; Bernie has actually done somewhat better because he won caucuses, which aren't notably democratic. So Bernie can't complain either. I am pretty sure the super delegates are not going to pull the nomination out of Bernie's hands if he wins the vote and pledged delegate counts. He is simply losing to Clinton in votes cast, fair and square, and it is not all that close. Some of the states he won, like Wyoming, have fewer people than some medium sized towns in California.
grokit
well-worn member
"Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.
"How does he lose by winning 56 percent of the votes? This happens when the political process is, according to the New York Post, “rigged” by superdelegates.
"In fact, despite his win, he splits Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus."
http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/bernie-sanders-wins-democratic-caucuses-in-wyoming/
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/2016-the-year-americans-found-out-our-elections-are-rigged.html
Last edited:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
OK so Wyoming had 14 delegates. Let's suppose, for ease of arithmetic, that Sanders got 10% more votes than Clinton and the delegates are given proportionally. That would mean he should get 1 or 2 pledged delegates more than Clinton, right? Somehow they have some arcane rules that probably involve counting within counties and the 10% difference ended up getting rounded off to zero, and they each got 7. You can complain that he should have gotten 8 or 9, but that's it - you are quibbling over 1 or 2 delegates. Even if Sanders were awarded those 2 delegates it wouldn't change the overall status of the race.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
It's too late to change things for this up coming election but if the people demand change it will happen. The process to elect a person to run in the November presidential election as a Democrat or a Republican should be chosen by the people not the party.
The American people have short memories, they get on with their lives forgetting until the next time the election becomes an issue.
The deck shouldn't be stacked in some candidate's favor before the process even starts. Where's the democracy in that? That's a problem for me as a voter.
What about delegates in states where Sanders won and the delegate votes for Clinton? Where the hell is the representative of the people's vote in that case? The voters might as well stay home. This creates the distrust in our system of government. The powers that be hope or should I say count on the tax payer and voter will be too busy working and taking care of a family to even notice.
@Gunky and @cybrguy you will probably get your wish. It doesn't look like Sanders will have a chance in hell with the way the system is. We get a president the people don't really want or like. I guess that's what we get for not paying attention. I hope we are ready for the Clinton Circus. I'm not. I'm not whining it's just the way it is.
Edit
But is it right for a delegate to vote for a different candidate than who their state voted for? Aren't the delegates suppose to be our representative. It seems like all the states have so many different rules. To me it seems like there needs to be some universal guidelines. All the rules keep changing for some states. Some crazy stuff out there.
The American people have short memories, they get on with their lives forgetting until the next time the election becomes an issue.
The deck shouldn't be stacked in some candidate's favor before the process even starts. Where's the democracy in that? That's a problem for me as a voter.
What about delegates in states where Sanders won and the delegate votes for Clinton? Where the hell is the representative of the people's vote in that case? The voters might as well stay home. This creates the distrust in our system of government. The powers that be hope or should I say count on the tax payer and voter will be too busy working and taking care of a family to even notice.
@Gunky and @cybrguy you will probably get your wish. It doesn't look like Sanders will have a chance in hell with the way the system is. We get a president the people don't really want or like. I guess that's what we get for not paying attention. I hope we are ready for the Clinton Circus. I'm not. I'm not whining it's just the way it is.
Edit
But is it right for a delegate to vote for a different candidate than who their state voted for? Aren't the delegates suppose to be our representative. It seems like all the states have so many different rules. To me it seems like there needs to be some universal guidelines. All the rules keep changing for some states. Some crazy stuff out there.
Last edited:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
This makes absolutely no sense. Bernie is losing fair and square without the super delegates. How can it be rigged if the person with the most votes wins? Clinton has 2.4 million more votes and a great many more pledged delegates. There is an excellent chance she will reach the magic number without the aid of any superdelegates. All this we wuz robbed stuff is unseemly whining.
This is worth a read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...the-very-last-vote-is-counted-bernie-sanders/
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
The fact that Sanders isn't going to win has little to do with the system and much to do with who he is as a candidate. But regardless of what is keeping him from winning, is it really YOUR wish that he should win while getting many millions fewer votes than Hillary? Without California or New York, Hillary already has many more than 2 million more votes. It could be 5M before this is over. With your stated desire for this to be done "democratically", Hillary is the walk off winner. But you think Bernie is winning? How do you get that?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-really-have-25-million-more-votes-san/
Oops, Hi Gunky. I'm not stalking you...
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
And, btw, my wish is not that Hillary wins. That isn't enough. My wish is that Hillary wins CONVINCINGLY and that Bernie concedes and openly and honestly asks his supporters to all come out and vote for her. And then he campaigns for her. And Donald wins on their side and keeps up the crazy so millions of republicans stay home and the Democrats win not only the White House and the Senate (with at least 60) but the House. And we can actually get some shit done over the next 4 or 8 years.
Hillary winning is just the start of what I wish for...
Hillary winning is just the start of what I wish for...
grokit
well-worn member
Actually if it's donald vs. hillary, the american people are absolutely guaranteed to elect a president they don't like; for the first time in history, the two frontrunners' negatives outweigh their positives.
"Fifty-five percent of Americans say they have a negative opinion of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in the latest AP-GfK poll. But that's not nearly as bad as how they view the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump. His unfavorable rating stands at an unprecedented 69 percent."
from:
A new poll shows Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are strikingly unpopular
"Fifty-five percent of Americans say they have a negative opinion of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in the latest AP-GfK poll. But that's not nearly as bad as how they view the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump. His unfavorable rating stands at an unprecedented 69 percent."
from:
A new poll shows Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are strikingly unpopular
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
My wish is that Bernie wins convincingly for the reason you stated . Bernie would crush Trump in the general. In fact, the polls show that Sanders wins Trump by a much larger margin than Clinton.. I know, I know, it's early and the polls will go up and down, however, at this point it is truly impressive that Sanders wins huge against a Trump... If the dems win the house and the senate, Bernie will have a much easier time getting big legislation passed...I'm not talking about getting SOME shit done, I'm talking about tha chance to pass major progressive legislation..
For me personally, I want the most progressive candidate to win because there won't be this chance again...I mean, how often will the republicans have such a weak candidate that they have found with Trump..
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
I don't necessarily dislike Hillary Clinton. I just like Sanders more. I've said it before, if Hillary is the nominee I'll gladly vote for her.
You'll never catch me voting for a Trump or a Cruz...
I'm with ya on that.
howie105
Well-Known Member
Wow, Sanders was pressing the flesh IN a crowd in Central Park, I bet his security was sweating bullets. It really fits into his presentation and narrative as a "man of the people" when compared to the safer but distant approach most of the other candidates of both parties have now adopted. Such an approach will probably pay off if it doesn’t get him taken down.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I think Bernie needs to be a little more careful about how he talks about the south, and more importantly, how he talks, directly or indirectly, about the Democratic Party's most loyal constituency. I get that black people don't tend to vote for him, but he diminishes or discounts them at his own peril.
Sanders says Southern primaries ‘distort reality’
04/14/16 09:47 AM—Updated 04/14/16 09:57 AM
Bernie Sanders has made clear he much prefers talking about his political vision, not the campaign process, but there’s one part of the process the Vermont senator talks about quite a bit. Time magazine reported:
Bernie Sanders told “Nightly Show” host Larry Wilmore at a taping Wednesday evening that scheduling Southern states early in the Democratic primary “distorts reality.” […]
“Well, you know,” Sanders said, “people say, ‘Why does Iowa go first, why does New Hampshire go first,’ but I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality as well.”
Comments like these are an extension of a standard argument from the Sanders campaign: it may look like Hillary Clinton enjoys a sizable advantage, but her lead only exists because of the South. The “reality,” when it’s not “distorted,” is a lot different.
But the more Sanders makes this argument, the less sure I am of the point he’s trying to make.
I’m absolutely certain that the senator isn’t trying to dismiss the importance of African-American voters – such an argument would be completely contrary to his progressive values and campaign strategy – but when Sanders says “reality” is “distorted” by primary results from states in which black voters dominate, it’s not at all clear which reality he’s referring to.
Perhaps Sanders’ aides have encouraged him to make this argument. Maybe it’s not too late for him to remove this rhetorical arrow from his quiver.
It’s possible the senator is arguing that conservatives tend to dominate in the South, so the primary results in the region are less important. At first blush, this may seem compelling, except Republicans also dominate in states like Utah and Idaho – states Sanders won easily. Do they distort reality, too? Why would Kansas represent reality more than Georgia?
In fact, the same week that Clinton did well in states like Florida and Virginia, Sanders won in Oklahoma and Nebraska. There’s no reason to believe those Democratic voters are any more or less important – or more or less in line with reality – than any other group of Democratic voters.
What’s more, the South may be filled with “red” states, but in Democratic primaries, it’s economically liberal African-American voters who represent the bulk of those who are turning out to participate. Their votes don’t “distort” reality so much as they reflect reality.
Maybe the argument is that Southern voters count, but they shouldn’t have a prominent role at the start of the primary season. Except, (a) the South doesn’t go first; the overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire go first; and (b) I don’t know why states with fewer black voters would do a better job of ensuring that reality isn’t distorted.
Perhaps Sanders means Southern states aren’t truly representative of the Democratic electorate. Except (a) given the importance of African-American communities in the party, I’m not sure why not; and (b) are voters in Utah, Kansas, and Idaho more representative of the Democratic electorate?
Maybe he means that Democrats won’t do well in these Southern states in the general election. That’s true, but once again, the same can be said of many of the states Sanders has also won.
As we discussed the other day, the New York Times reported last week that the Sanders campaign deliberately focused its efforts away from the South for a reason: “Sanders and his advisers and allies knew that black voters would be decisive in those Southern contests, but he had been unable to make significant inroads with them.”
As a tactical matter, this made perfect sense. There was no reason for the senator and his operation to build an electoral strategy around states he was likely to lose.
But as a rhetorical matter, arguing that states in which black voters were decisive “kind of distort reality” is a very different kind of message, one that Sanders still has time to change.
Sanders says Southern primaries ‘distort reality’
04/14/16 09:47 AM—Updated 04/14/16 09:57 AM
Bernie Sanders has made clear he much prefers talking about his political vision, not the campaign process, but there’s one part of the process the Vermont senator talks about quite a bit. Time magazine reported:
Bernie Sanders told “Nightly Show” host Larry Wilmore at a taping Wednesday evening that scheduling Southern states early in the Democratic primary “distorts reality.” […]
“Well, you know,” Sanders said, “people say, ‘Why does Iowa go first, why does New Hampshire go first,’ but I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality as well.”
Comments like these are an extension of a standard argument from the Sanders campaign: it may look like Hillary Clinton enjoys a sizable advantage, but her lead only exists because of the South. The “reality,” when it’s not “distorted,” is a lot different.
But the more Sanders makes this argument, the less sure I am of the point he’s trying to make.
I’m absolutely certain that the senator isn’t trying to dismiss the importance of African-American voters – such an argument would be completely contrary to his progressive values and campaign strategy – but when Sanders says “reality” is “distorted” by primary results from states in which black voters dominate, it’s not at all clear which reality he’s referring to.
Perhaps Sanders’ aides have encouraged him to make this argument. Maybe it’s not too late for him to remove this rhetorical arrow from his quiver.
It’s possible the senator is arguing that conservatives tend to dominate in the South, so the primary results in the region are less important. At first blush, this may seem compelling, except Republicans also dominate in states like Utah and Idaho – states Sanders won easily. Do they distort reality, too? Why would Kansas represent reality more than Georgia?
In fact, the same week that Clinton did well in states like Florida and Virginia, Sanders won in Oklahoma and Nebraska. There’s no reason to believe those Democratic voters are any more or less important – or more or less in line with reality – than any other group of Democratic voters.
What’s more, the South may be filled with “red” states, but in Democratic primaries, it’s economically liberal African-American voters who represent the bulk of those who are turning out to participate. Their votes don’t “distort” reality so much as they reflect reality.
Maybe the argument is that Southern voters count, but they shouldn’t have a prominent role at the start of the primary season. Except, (a) the South doesn’t go first; the overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire go first; and (b) I don’t know why states with fewer black voters would do a better job of ensuring that reality isn’t distorted.
Perhaps Sanders means Southern states aren’t truly representative of the Democratic electorate. Except (a) given the importance of African-American communities in the party, I’m not sure why not; and (b) are voters in Utah, Kansas, and Idaho more representative of the Democratic electorate?
Maybe he means that Democrats won’t do well in these Southern states in the general election. That’s true, but once again, the same can be said of many of the states Sanders has also won.
As we discussed the other day, the New York Times reported last week that the Sanders campaign deliberately focused its efforts away from the South for a reason: “Sanders and his advisers and allies knew that black voters would be decisive in those Southern contests, but he had been unable to make significant inroads with them.”
As a tactical matter, this made perfect sense. There was no reason for the senator and his operation to build an electoral strategy around states he was likely to lose.
But as a rhetorical matter, arguing that states in which black voters were decisive “kind of distort reality” is a very different kind of message, one that Sanders still has time to change.
Last edited: