The people donating huge sums to her campaign seem to think she's not really into diminishing their influence.
Hillary Clinton's lead a puddle in the Sanders Sahara #deadheat #feelthebern
- Thread starter And_Gignac
- Start date
- Status
The people donating huge sums to her campaign seem to think she's not really into diminishing their influence.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The idea that people knowingly believe Sanders will take no money in the general, and they still want him to win the nomination is a little alarming.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
Feel the Bern or you're fired
Like I said, if your starting point in this conversation is "anybody who takes large sums of money for a political campaign is by definition corrupt," then I understand why you prefer Bernie over Hillary.
Unfortunately I also think you're pretty much politically irrelevant. Politics, especially in America, are designed for gradual change. You're looking for a revolution. We don't really do those any more.
This was the previous poll, they did not include Sanders matching in the new one, something they could have done easily.
User 463088
Banned
Hillary will, I think, pursue a similar strategy to what President Obama did. In the deep blue states, simply go for parity. (Since we allocate delegates proportionally, a 2 point loss in Iowa or NH is essentially meaningless.) Then, she'll run up huge margins in states that play to her demographic advantages (New York, South Carolina, Ohio, etc). She can afford a war of attrition if necessary. Sanders cannot.
Yeah it's tough to have principles.
For the record, it's discomfiting to me that you say Hillary needs to play defensively in "deep blue states" and then say that New York is a state that plays to Hillary's "demographic advantages."
Once again, this is the stuff that makes Bernie look like he has a race issue. Most of the "deep blue states" are the very states where Hillary will trounce Bernie because they're heavily minority. The states where Bernie has an advantage would be better described as "New England."
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Principles are great; they also don't win elections. I could repeat everything pigeon just said, but its easier to refer to those posts than retype the same points for the principle of having it come out of my avatar's mouth.
eBay Huckster
Member
In fact, we haven't really done them in any capacity for 150 years (and even then, that one failed).
It's pretty tough to win elections (and therefore gain more of the institutional power required to put those principles into law) when those principles entail you eschewing the primary cause of winning elections.
Interfectum
Member
We will not even get "gradual change" from someone who bought their way into the presidency through big corporate donations. She's especially not going to touch campaign finance reform during her first term and by her second she'll have a legacy to think about.
User 463088
Banned
I probably didn't phrase that as well as I should have.
The states that I see Sanders doing the best in are the states that are deep blue--Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, etc. I don't see him winning these (except Vermont), but I can see him doing fairly well there. These deeper blue states tend to be slightly more white and more liberal than some other states. (I think I should replace "Deep blue" with "New England," as I read what I type....)
Hillary's advantages are going to be in states with a larger block of working class voters (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc) and southern, red states due to demographic advantages (Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia). States with large minority populations are also going to more heavy for Hillary than for Sanders, barring a sweeping change that I simply don't see happening.)
Arkansas and New York will go to Hillary for obvious reasons.
Definitely not with that defeatist mood. You don't even want to try something good because it couldn't work out and instead go for something mediocre that could get worse.
eBay Huckster
Member
Right, let's just nominate the guy with an even lower chance of enacting "gradual change" (between weaker coattails, wider ideological gulfs between him and stakeholders on most issues, and, y'know, the fact that you seem to be operating in the hellverse where he won't take DNC money if nominated because he's Too Pure and Perfect for This System) on the sole basis that his Principles make us feel good.
Today I learned: the political reality of more than two centuries of American politics will suddenly shift in less than 4% of that time if we just hope and change it hard enough.
Hillary has pledged to take on Citizens United with the tools she has (which, admittedly, aren't much, since it's a SCOTUS decision) and to push election reform (which is a way, way, way more important issue for any reasonable progressive, since non-voting America is something like 70% Democratic).
In general, politicians keep the promises they campaign on. See Jonathan Bernstein:
washington monthly said:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...features/campaign_promises034471.php?page=all
So, I mean, I feel pretty confident that, if elected, she will try to reform our political system. It's what she campaigned on, she's offering things that are within her power to push (obviously we won't get a constitutional amendment, but she's offering to put one forward, not promising to get it passed), political science says she'll do it.
Do you have an argument why she won't that isn't just "because she took money?"
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Its not a defeatist mood. I don't want Sanders to win the nomination because I don't like him.
I would say there is a difference between taking money from donors and taking money from a super pac. You can't track the money from a super pac and anyone could set it up and run ads against the any politician or political cause without having any accountability for it since it can be done anonymously.
User 463088
Banned
Then you don't understand. You're a neo-liberal, warhawk, defeatist, corporate loving warmonger. You probably do shifty things with your e-mails too. You're not a progressive, either. How dare you. How very dare you. /s
Souldriver
Member
Where do people get the idea of Sanders being the best bet against Trump? I don't see him picking up the demographics that Trump doesn't, and -since clearly 90% of this charade is optics- I can see a lot of people being turned off by his stuffy look, compared to the "badass" (I'm cringing here) look of Trump.
I feel like Hillary is as competent as they come. However, I fear for a "self fulfilling prophecy" where the slightest bit of thightening in the polls is narrated as a weakness of Hillary, and that eventually people start to lose faith and support in her because of that.
Democrats better rally behind whoever they chose though. For fucks sake, I don't care if it's Biden, Clinton, Sanders, or someone else. All their policies are more or less similar, and light years ahead of anything the republican clowns are proposing. So the comments of Hillary being a corporate shill, or unlikable, or whatever, are already making me nervous. Part of the democratic base are already turning their back to their chances at winning, and would rather gamble we have President Trump (or Walker or Bush or whatever).
I feel like Hillary is as competent as they come. However, I fear for a "self fulfilling prophecy" where the slightest bit of thightening in the polls is narrated as a weakness of Hillary, and that eventually people start to lose faith and support in her because of that.
Democrats better rally behind whoever they chose though. For fucks sake, I don't care if it's Biden, Clinton, Sanders, or someone else. All their policies are more or less similar, and light years ahead of anything the republican clowns are proposing. So the comments of Hillary being a corporate shill, or unlikable, or whatever, are already making me nervous. Part of the democratic base are already turning their back to their chances at winning, and would rather gamble we have President Trump (or Walker or Bush or whatever).
*I will say though, she really doesn't come off as likeable, and is so typically "politically calculated" it's annoying. In a recent interview with Fresh Air, she was pressed on her change in POV regarding same sex marriage. Terry Gross asked her if she always felt SSM was okay but for political reasons didn't show her support in the past, or that she has changed her views on SSM and in the past didn't support it. She simply wouldn't fucking answer the question. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too, suggesting she didn't change her views, yet that it was not for political reasons she didn't support it publically Wtf! No, it's one or the other, Hillary! Why don't you just say that you evolved on the subject. It's a good thing that people can change their minds. It shows that you're not just following doctrine, but are a thinking human being and base your ideas and actions on facts and evidence.
Suddenly? America began moving years ago and you could feel it when Obama took the wheel.
My bad. Sorry then, carry on.
There's a huge difference, absolutely, which is why Citizens United is so problematic.
But, again, the GOP has a superPAC. In fact they have like a thousand of them. They have unlimited financial resources for this election.
There's a reason why Obama accepted reality and started his own superPAC last year. These are the rules of the game.
Now, admittedly, money has diminishing returns, and superPAC money is less effective than campaign money because of various regulations privileging campaign cash, so obviously parties can win even with a money deficit. But the scale of the deficit between a campaign without a superPAC and one that has one would be massive. I'd rather not take that bet.
eBay Huckster
Member
...and this changes the fact that America's political & policy environments shift gradually how, exactly?
The money-in-politics paradigm is not suddenly going to change overnight even if Bernie is nominated and *even if he wins the election*. That's literally exactly what I'm arguing.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I mean, those things are all completely true, but its beside the point that all of the specific things Sanders stands for don't appear to actually be concrete policy aims but mostly just meaningless slogans to differentiate himself from Clinton.
User 463088
Banned
General question:
Why is it so terrible that part of deciding who to support is who you think has the best chance of winning? Why is that such a terrible thing? (Genuinely asking, not trying to start anything or attack anyone.) I mean, why shouldn't that be a part of it. As long as you have a rational basis for such a judgement, I don't see why it's so terrible.
Why is it so terrible that part of deciding who to support is who you think has the best chance of winning? Why is that such a terrible thing? (Genuinely asking, not trying to start anything or attack anyone.) I mean, why shouldn't that be a part of it. As long as you have a rational basis for such a judgement, I don't see why it's so terrible.
And_Gignac
Member
The Sanders threads are always a mess, haha. I love it.
November can't come soon enough.
November can't come soon enough.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
November of next year.
Damerman
Member
eBay Huckster
Member
god damn it why can't I be Canadian
this might be their longest election campaign ever but at least it'll be over in ONLY TWO FUCKING MONTHS
If she loses she can't blame anyone but herself.
I don't think Hillary has to worry about the high population states at all. She got the majority vote all of them in 2008 except for Texas, and the margin was very narrow in Texas so she got a lot of delegates out of Texas anyway.
Sander surge is real ! CNN is even reporting it: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html
Also in other news, Trump surge is real too :O
Also in other news, Trump surge is real too :O
you betcha. November of next year is going to be memorable. We elect our first woman president. Never will I be more proud of America then that day. /s
Great! I much prefer this over "I'd vote for Bernie but he has no chance of winning."
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Yeah I really hate that.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is hand waved off. "Pshaw! Like we can trust Hillary"
There's posters in this thread who actively ignore her previous liberal voting record for rhetoric about her previous corporatist voting record.
Because it creates the issue of settling for less. Nearly all of our issues in America and solutions being proposed are settling for less. Our health care crater is literally a perfect example. ACA is fucking garbage because it has yet to address any of the major issues of our insurance-ridden system has produced, but only created more players in the game. It still fucking failed to insure everybody too, and that itself is hilarious.
Hillary may be a likely candidate, but that doesn't change the fact that her stance on many issues is absolutely shady and snakey. I'd rather have someone whose views are factually more accountable to reality in regards to their issues than someone who's flimsy on that front, and I find Hillary crazy flimsy on issues I find major. Hillary's silence on the fucking cancer that is the Trans-Pacific Partnership is painfully telling.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Its not unfounded because in theory, Sanders claims he's not going to take any money and it takes money to win elections. But the formula is really simple: it takes money to win an election; it takes winning an election to get rid of money in elections. Therefore, you need money in this election to get rid of money in future elections.
I don't understand why this is actually a difficult point for so many people. If all you care about is money in elections, what you care about is overturning Citizen's United. Either Sanders or Clinton accomplishes that goal, so I don't get why you would actively give this point to Sanders over Clinton beyond the fact that he's doing something that will actively harm his chances in the general election.
I'm starting to question whether people understand that Sanders can't just float a bill to overturn Citizen's United.
User 463088
Banned
Oh, I agree. I was just going to a theoretical campaign where Sanders manages to get close somehow.
Speaking of Texas, I believe they changed their rules so what happened in 2008 won't happen again. (Hillary got more votes, but President Obama received more delegates).
I really like Sanders ideas, but I think they're not realistic with congress and have a low chance of actually getting into legislation. They're extremely idealistic and left leaning. Hillary on the other hand seems more grounded in the reality of current politics and how they work, and has ideas that seem like they would have a much better chance of being passed. While not as extreme as Sanders, Clinton is still moderately left and her platform is very solid. I think she's more center than Sanders and more likely to be successful with congress.
BTW, did you guys check out Hillary vs Bernie on the Black Lives Matter group? Hillary was a total pro and didn't back down like Bernie. She was pretty awesome. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-meeting/index.html
BTW, did you guys check out Hillary vs Bernie on the Black Lives Matter group? Hillary was a total pro and didn't back down like Bernie. She was pretty awesome. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-meeting/index.html
boiled goose
good with gravy
Money matters but presidential election is a bit different. Lots of free publicity. Also big expensive TV adds are not super necessary anymore to reach a wide audience in the age of the internet.
Hillary take money out? Hahahaha. Why? She is where she is because of money in politics.
I don't understand why anyone would take Hillary's or any politician's word on anything? The only way you can have some semblance of assurance is by judging politicians by their actions, i.e. their records.
Bernie has remained consistent and foreward thinking for decades. Hillary hasn't. They're not the same. Hillary isn't going to do half the progressive shit Bernie will. She is backed big money and she didn't get that money for nothing. There is always a cost.
I just have to shake my head at those individuals that think this election is so important that the means will have to justify the end. That's how America got in the mess it is now in the first place: by cutting deals with big money so that "everyone wins" - but the only ones who win are the politicans and the companies. The people get fucked and will continue to get fucked until they take big money out of politics.
Bernie has remained consistent and foreward thinking for decades. Hillary hasn't. They're not the same. Hillary isn't going to do half the progressive shit Bernie will. She is backed big money and she didn't get that money for nothing. There is always a cost.
I just have to shake my head at those individuals that think this election is so important that the means will have to justify the end. That's how America got in the mess it is now in the first place: by cutting deals with big money so that "everyone wins" - but the only ones who win are the politicans and the companies. The people get fucked and will continue to get fucked until they take big money out of politics.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yup..
That's one of the more incredible things I've seen in a political discussion here.. the idea that she'd be sketchy on SCOTUS nominees. If you had told a room of Democrats this in the mid-1990s, they would've laughed you off of the stage. This nears tinfoil territory.
You'd almost get the impression that people think they're electing a president into a vacuum.
User 463088
Banned
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.
The issue I have with 'settling for less" is that's just the way the American political system is set-up. It was deliberately setup to protect against radical sweeping changes. There's literally no chance that Sanders will get half of what he wants through Congress. The only way anything has a chance of getting passed is through incremental changes. That's why we have a separation of powers. That's why all of our branches of government have to be on the same page to get something done. This is just the reality of the situation. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can't actually believe Sanders would be happier with the status quo instead of getting every, single thing that he wants.
As much as we may want a socialist utopia, there is zero chance of getting things like that passed. Realism is more important than idealism.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Let's take a commanding lead against guys like Walker and turn it into a dead heat because #feelthebern.
DrFaustPhD
Member
Maybe I'm just naive to politics or something, but Bernie's appeal to me is that he's been far more specific than any other candidate I can think of, and talks about tangible actions while still emphasizing him being in office isn't enough; but the attitude and involvement from US citizens is the crucial element no matter who gets elected.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-economic-inequality/
vs.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Finding information on what Hillary actually plans to do isn't an easy task on her website or anywhere else, whereas Bernie seems to be going into great detail on quite a few issues.
Vote establishment or go home!
- Status