Support NeoGAF

[Spoiled Milk]

This doesn't help your point. Kissinger is a war criminal and Hillary's neo-liberal foreign policy is garbage. It's shit. It's the same shit that we've done since our post WW2 forays into Asian, Middle Eastern, and South and Central American countries, and it gets people killed. She is such an interventionist that the hardcore conservatives at Cato have her as the most interventionist candidate still in the race (and only second to Lindsey Graham overall).

Her only saving grace in that regard is that except for Rand Paul, everyone else is generally nearly as bad as she is.

Your point about her fighting for HillaryCare would be great except that she botched it and set back a significant advance in health care policy in this country for over fifteen years.

Let's not pretend that she's an all-star candidate. She's going to keep us quagmired in stupid proxy wars and she's not some brilliant negotiator. She's smart and she's going to govern to the left of her inclinations, but your post is massively overblown in its praise for her, IMO.

...she has called for the unlimited global pursuit of terrorists, which earned her an extra 100 points in our scoring system...

Yeah, that's some grade-A bullshit right there. She's said no ground groups in Iraq or Syria, and that she would try not to engage in war during her presidency. She's also in favor of the Iran deal, while Republicans called for bunker busters and war. Unlimited global pursuit of terrorists is not even close to the same as "interventionism". Their rubric is flawed.

She botched HillaryCare? No, she fought for a plan that she thought was politically viable and Newt Gingrich killed it. She's learned lessons since then that Bernie Sanders never seemed to internalize because quite frankly it's way easier to make show votes and tell your consituency "at least I tried" than it is to be Bill Clinton trying to get a health care bill passed only to see it crumble in the face of insurance company funded oppopposition.

We can disagree, but I think one of the most pernicious state of affairs today is the political character assassination of Hillary Clinton that makes people think she *isn't* an all-star candidate.

 

[Dragmire]

The system is set up so that change is achievable by holding all three branches of the federal government. If not then you have to work with the other side, and it is completely by design.

For Sanders political revolution to happen he would have to motivate the Democrat side to such an extent that the gerrymandered house would be flipped. That's really, really fucking hard, to the point where even Clinton vs Trump achieving that with the Democrat machine in full force and the RNC in full disarray is slim. Very slim.

Perhaps, but as I said... why not try? If the alternative is Hillary, who I believe to be thoroughly corrupt and only works towards self-interest (any benefits to others being mostly incidental)... I would quickly choose someone with better values. It just means that the path is much harder. I was never one to take the easy route. And in fact, one could argue that Sanders has already started more positive social and political change than the other candidates and he is only campaigning. But he was also known as an independent progressive in Congress who was able to pass more bills than anyone else as well. And he is also known to rally people over to his side. I would take that promise over the Clintons' thirst for wealth and power.

The evidence is Obama's presidency. Obama ran an iconic campaign that dwarfs even Sanders' in the amount of support it garnered, and he went into office with damn near a Democrat supermajority, and still republican obstruction kept him from getting most of campaign promises through.

For me to believe in quick drastic change from Sanders I'd need to see an actual political revolution. A uprising of support for his ideals at all levels of government, and not just surrounding his own candidacy.

Yes, Obama was stifled every step of the way. But one President over 8 years is not really proof that improvements only occurs gradually. In fact, you could use Obama as an example to argue that overall net improvements did not occur at all. I would not take that stance (gay marriage!), but I don't think using a single President proves anything about change. I think Bernie has some opportunity to appoint a unique cabinet, new Supreme Court Justices, and help other people in Washington that may have grown distaste for the current establishment. Change always begets hardship, but it is a necessary hardship.

 

[mo60]

Rubio has shot up to 11% with Bush. If Rubio could steal 4th place the night won't be a total loss for him

1400 vote gap between the two currently. He won't close the gap between Bush and him tonight. He will end up in fifth in the NH primary.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

All I want is a guaranteed win by the democrats. Bernie winning GE makes it that much more of an unknown because the stakes are too fucking high.

A republican president would do away with:

- ACA
- any sort of immigration reform
- any progress towards LGBT and women's rights
- ANY and ALL climate change initiatives
- the IRAN deal and any kind of peaceful foreign policy

And promote xenophobia and intolerance, which we've seen blatantly during any of their debates and town hall meetings. And the fiscal conservatism that will lead to defunding infrastructure, working till 75 and more than likely the elimination of PP.

And probably many many other things I haven't listed.

For these reasons, I can understand why some go for Hillary - there's too much fucking at stake here. Even if the chance of a democratic president decreases only by a mere 1%, it would NOT be worth the risk at this point in time.

 

[Basileus777]

1400 vote gap between the two. That won't be closed tonight. He will stay in five.

And the gap hasn't closed at all, it's been constant for hours.

 

[mo60]

And the gap hasn't closed at all, it's been constant for hours.

Also I think at this point rubio has less than a 20% chance of winning the republican nomination.Same with Bush.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I hear ya. But having not moved from VT terribly too long ago, it really feels like six people of color are in NH and maybe two up in Vermont.

You clearly didn't go to Burlington, VT. It's the most diverse part of the state, which might not seem like much but as of 2010 Census it was at 87.3% non-Hispanic White, which in a state that overall is 95.3% White (according to the same Census), is quite a deviation. I personally can tell you that number is also going down quickly because of a large influx of Nepali people in the last few years.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Perhaps, but as I said... why not try? If the alternative is Hillary, who I believe to be thoroughly corrupt and only works towards self-interest (any benefits to others being mostly incidental)... I would quickly choose someone with better values. It just means that the path is much harder. I was never one to take the easy route. And in fact, one could argue that Sanders has already started more positive social and political change than the other candidates and he is only campaigning. But he was also known as an independent progressive in Congress who was able to pass more bills than anyone else as well. And he is also known to rally people over to his side. I would take that promise over the Clintons' thirst for wealth and power.

Because trying and failing is still failing.

And failing in the sense that Republicans win because of trying for lofty goals is no win for many people will be directly affected by a Republican federal government.

If both candidates are so tarnished by the infighting that the Republicans can take advantage that would be the worst outcome.

Also Sanders has not proven himself to be able to convince a large segment of the population to vote for him imo. In the primary, let alone the general. I also have the feeling the DNC will betray him if he gets the nominee. They don't trust him and who can blame them? Some outsider who never pays his dues suddenly shows up and wins the whole thing. Why bother putting the time in working for the chance then? They're spiteful enough, and the voters have an unnerving tendency to bail as well when facing a perceived extremist on the ballot.

 

[StickSoldier]

So what's the best way for a political change then anyways? I feel like there needs to be something to shakeup the government, which is one reason I like Bernie, but I kinda feel like Clinton doesn't feel the same. I'm very uneducated about Clinton and Bernie honestly, it's just that from seeing some videos, I feel Bernie really wants to rally the people behind him to BEGIN a process of change in the government and this country. I don't think everyone that follows Bernie believes he will get everything passed, of course not, but he's very vocal about the corruption surrounding the political system and the country. Bernie seems to be of uniting the middle/poor class and taking on the evil upper 1% of this country, that's why I like him honestly.

Edit: On the flipside, I can see why people are worried about Bernie being nominated.. I would hate for a fucking republican to get president. Ugh.. I think Bernie would still win overall, but I know Clinton is more sure Democratic nominee to get the election.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Perhaps, but as I said... why not try? If the alternative is Hillary, who I believe to be thoroughly corrupt and only works towards self-interest (any benefits to others being mostly incidental)... I would quickly choose someone with better values. It just means that the path is much harder. I was never one to take the easy route. And in fact, one could argue that Sanders has already started more positive social and political change than the other candidates and he is only campaigning. But he was also known as an independent progressive in Congress who was able to pass more bills than anyone else as well. And he is also known to rally people over to his side. I would take that promise over the Clintons' thirst for wealth and power.


Yes, Obama was stifled every step of the way. But one President over 8 years is not really proof that improvements only occurs gradually. In fact, you could use Obama as an example to argue that overall net improvements did not occur at all. I would not take that stance (gay marriage!), but I don't think using a single President proves anything about change. I think Bernie has some opportunity to appoint a unique cabinet, new Supreme Court Justices, and help other people in Washington that may have grown distaste for the current establishment. Change always begets hardship, but it is a necessary hardship.

If wealth and power was all she wanted, she'd be better off staying in the private sector. All of the wealth and power without the constant attention of political life.

Whether you want to believe it or not, most the candidates running for President likely believe in fighting for some sort of ideal. Yes, money and power comes with politics, and is no doubt a motivator. But if that was their only goal, there are far better avanues to that than running for President

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Yeah, that's some grade-A bullshit right there. She's said no ground groups in Iraq or Syria, and that she would try not to engage in war during her presidency. She's also in favor of the Iran deal, while Republicans called for bunker busters and war. Unlimited global pursuit of terrorists is not even close to the same as "interventionism". Their rubric is flawed.

She botched HillaryCare? No, she fought for a plan that she thought was politically viable and Newt Gingrich killed it. She's learned lessons since then that Bernie Sanders never seemed to internalize because quite frankly it's way easier to make show votes and tell your consituency "at least I tried" than it is to be Bill Clinton trying to get a health care bill passed only to see it crumble in the face of insurance company funded oppopposition.

We can disagree, but I think one of the most pernicious state of affairs today is the political character assassination of Hillary Clinton that makes people think she *isn't* an all-star candidate.

Of course she's in favor of the Iran deal! As former SoS for Obama and someone who needs to work with another leader of the party to get elected, she certainly will be. You don't think "unlimited global pursuit of terrorism" involves things like intervention? Literally since WW2, it always has meant that (replace "terrorism" with "Communism" for the pre-9/11 version of that phrase). She's a pro-Iraq war voter precisely because her idea of combating terrorism involves the very concept of intervention.

And as far as HillaryCare, no, she botched it. She botched it so bad that we didn't even get the Heritage Foundation-formed GOP counter-offer that is essentially today's ACA.

Again, I'll be voting for her in the general, but the only type of person who would call that "grade-A bullshit" is the type of person who is ignorant of history, whether willingly or unwillingly. Equating "being aware of the facts" and "pernicious character attacks" is disingenuous on your part, with all respect.

 

[cpp_is_king]

So what's the best way for a political change then anyways? I feel like there needs to be something to shakeup the government, which is one reason I like Bernie, but I kinda feel like Clinton doesn't feel the same. I'm very uneducated about Clinton and Bernie honestly, it's just that from seeing some videos, I feel Bernie really wants to rally the people behind him to BEGIN a process of change in the government and this country. I don't think everyone that follows Bernie believes he will get everything passed, of course not, but he's very vocal about the corruption surrounding the political system and the country. Bernie seems to be of uniting the middle/poor class and taking on the evil upper 1% of this country, that's why I like him honestly.

Obama wanted to do the same thing, and I dont' feel like much has changed in the past 8 years.

 

[BoboBrazil]

All I want is a guaranteed win by the democrats. Bernie winning GE makes it that much more of an unknown because the stakes are too fucking high.

A republican president would do away with:

- ACA
- any sort of immigration reform
- any progress towards LGBT and women's rights
- ANY and ALL climate change initiatives
- the IRAN deal and any kind of peaceful foreign policy

And promote xenophobia and intolerance, which we've seen blatantly during any of their debates and town hall meetings. And the fiscal conservatism that will lead to defunding infrastructure, working till 75 and more than likely the elimination of PP.

And probably many many other things I haven't listed.

For these reasons, I can understand why some go for Hillary - there's too much fucking at stake here. Even if the chance of a democratic president decreases only by a mere 1%, it would NOT be worth the risk at this point in time.

Yep, Hilary is the best chance to keep a democrat in the white house.

 

[Basileus777]

Obama wanted to do the same thing, and I dont' feel like much has changed in the past 8 years.

You can thank Democrats not voting in midterm elections for that.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You can thank Democrats not voting in midterm elections for that.

Always someone to blame right? Just like there will be someone to blame when Bernie can't change anything either.

 

[royalan]

You can thank Democrats not voting in midterm elections for that.

It wasn't just the voters; it was Dems in government allowing themselves to be bullied by Republican messaging and running away from Obama, instead of rallying around him and running on his accomplishments.

The entire party let Obama down.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

What tools are available to the President to get anything done and the powers he actually has as President. It feels like a lot of other people weren't paying attention

Great nominations w/ Senate approval, great advisors, implementing and enforcing current laws, steady dose of executive orders, etc. A lot of people were paying attention. If some progressive/low-income voters hadn't responded this way, then that would be scary. It would suggest liberal voters are complete dummies that don't recognize systematic corruption, preferential treatment, and that the current state of affairs aren't in their best interest. If you're on the progressive side and thought the DOJ's performance throughout Obama's terms was acceptable or that Timothy Geithner was a good hire, then the US is extremely poor shape.

 

[brainchild]

It wasn't just the voters; it was Dems in government allowing themselves to be bullied by Republican messaging and running away from Obama, instead of rallying around him and running on his accomplishments.

The entire party let Obama down.

This is my take as well.

 

[Dragmire]

If wealth and power was all she wanted, she'd be better off staying in the private sector. All of the wealth and power without the constant attention of political life.

Whether you want to believe it or not, most the candidates running for President likely believe in fighting for some sort of ideal. Yes, money and power comes with politics, and is no doubt a motivator. But if that was their only goal, there are far better avanues to that than running for President

It is not a matter of wanting to believe anything. I would advise you to do some research on the Clintons.

 

[eyeball_kid]

All I want is a guaranteed win by the democrats. Bernie winning GE makes it that much more of an unknown because the stakes are too fucking high.

A republican president would do away with:
[...]
- the IRAN deal and any kind of peaceful foreign policy

For these reasons, I can understand why some go for Hillary - there's too much fucking at stake here. Even if the chance of a democratic president decreases only by a mere 1%, it would NOT be worth the risk at this point in time.

It's highly unlikely that Clinton would've done the Iran deal. She's historically been hawkish on FP issues and certainly didn't reach out to Iran while Sec of State the way Kerry did. We would most likely see a more Republican foreign policy with a President H. Clinton.

 

[ibyea]

It wasn't just the voters; it was Dems in government allowing themselves to be bullied by Republican messaging and running away from Obama, instead of rallying around him and running on his accomplishments.

The entire party let Obama down.

The other Dems weren't responsible for some of Obama's capitulation. That said, the watering down of the ACA I blame entirely on Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, that asshole. We were so close to having a public option. So close.

 

[Aaronology]

I agree that things tend to happen in baby steps, but I don't agree that they only have to happen that way. Why would they only have to happen that way? Is there some kind of evidence that drastic change in the US is only achievable slowly? This sounds like more of a defeatist outlook to me.

When you are trying to improve things, don't you set a high goal whether it is likely to be met or not? I get your point that change is usually slow, but the philosophy that idealists will get a taste of reality seems to suggest that you think idealists are unable to be realistic. Isn't that a fallacious distinction?

You want to see people coming together to affect government? Look at the Tea Party. They've come out in midterms, they've started local, they've moved up. Putting aside how anyone feels about them, what the Tea Party has accomplished in under a decade is amazing and is how things should be done in this country. Step by step, they have significantly changed the face of the Republican Party with dedication, work, sweat and voting consistently. Their politicians that fail or stray from the message get discarded and replaced by someone else because they're voting for causes and not saviors. They did not start from the top down with idealistic and unreachable goals.

Meanwhile, we have a growing personality cult springing up (again) in Sanders and it's so incredibly frustrating to witness. It's like watching someone unfamiliar with chess try to win on the first turn by barreling immediately towards King. Nothing from Bernie's campaign to date has shown me he is capable of igniting the same sort of fiery the Tea Party has been enjoying since Barack was elected. Revolution? Where does it come from? Turnout is down. GOP controls Congress. If your support of Sanders hinges on him catalyzing change then you are ignoring reality or don't understand that a President is not a dictator. Frankly, it feels like he is fueling his campaign by promising things that he knows he will not be able to deliver in our current political climate, and doing so in such a pivotal moment when Democrats and the minorities who vote for them have so much to lose.

It's unsettling.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Of course she's in favor of the Iran deal! As former SoS for Obama and someone who needs to work with another leader of the party to get elected, she certainly will be. You don't think "unlimited global pursuit of terrorism" involves things like intervention? Literally since WW2, it always has meant that (replace "terrorism" with "Communism" for the pre-9/11 version of that phrase). She's a pro-Iraq war voter precisely because her idea of combating terrorism involves the very concept of intervention.

And as far as HillaryCare, no, she botched it. She botched it so bad that we didn't even get the Heritage Foundation-formed GOP counter-offer that is essentially today's ACA.

Again, I'll be voting for her in the general, but the only type of person who would call that "grade-A bullshit" is the type of person who is ignorant of history, whether willingly or unwillingly. Equating "being aware of the facts" and "pernicious character attacks" is disingenuous on your part, with all respect.

I was calling the Cato Institute analysis bullshit, apologies if there was a misunderstanding.

Her Iraq vote was a lot of things, but it was not about terrorism. It was about Saddam Hussein. She was itching to get rid of him, and her husband had already bombed the shit out of him. The Middle East needed a democracy, and Iraq's ashes were just the place to put one. This is how a lot of people felt. And not to mention, Bush was lying to everyone. When Colin Powell testifies that Saddam Hussein probably has WMDs, that means something. Yeah, she was wrong, but so were most people. Post-911 world. I think Fareed Zakaria is a modern prophet with unmatched insight and intellect and even he was in favor of the Iraq War.

In any case, I don't necessarily agree with her foreign policy positions all the time. I think Obama has set a precedent that would be foolish to depart from. But those strike me as minor blemishes on a highly polished resume. Her qualifications are nothing to sniff at.

I do know the history of HillaryCare. We are simply going to disagree on who did the botching. Or whether it was unavoidable in the political climate.

Your standards are high, and I respect that. So I ask you: what progressive is actually better qualified to run for president than Hillary Clinton?

Oh, and lastly, I actually was not referring to you when I said "pernicious character attacks". What I meant was that the mythical right wing conspiracy has quite seriously damaged her reputation and there are many voters that just do not see her as the progressive that they want. I think if one or two things were a little different, she might have been the darling of the American left. Instead, she is a politically divisive candidate that makes Republicans seethe and some "true" liberals hesitate.

 

[Joni]

It's highly unlikely that Clinton would've done the Iran deal. She's historically been hawkish on FP issues and certainly didn't reach out to Iran while Sec of State the way Kerry did. We would most likely see a more Republican foreign policy with a President H. Clinton.

She might not have done the deal if she was in power, but she won't undo anything Obama did. At worst, relations with Iran would remain unchanged under her. It is different from the Republicans who are trying to do everything in their power to undo it.

 

[kess]

The other Dems weren't responsible for some of Obama's capitulation. That said, the watering down of the ACA I blame entirely on Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, that asshole. We were so close to having a public option. So close.

Lieberman won in 1988 with backing from none other than William Buckley, a strategy that paid off in ways that conservatives never would have imagined in their wildest dreams. They managed to elect a conservative Democrat and weaken the liberal Republicans they opposed (namely, Lowell Weicker) at the same time. The Buckleys were masters of working through the system to change it. And James Buckley helped pave the way for Trump's (partially) self-funded candidacy.

Obama did his best to make the system work, which is more than I can say for most people.

 

[Crocodile]

Is there any evidence that these issues are affecting minority voters in primaries? Like, are there any issue polls out of the South that show that Sanders' stance on tackling racial inequality or that his supporters' dismissiveness is turning off AA voters there? If not, this is just your best guess as based on a few blog posts and Twitter accounts. That is not compelling evidence.

Look what do you want me to tell you? People keep asking "why has Bernie been struggling with AAs?" I, and many on this board who are Black have given you reason after reason based on our life experiences - how we feel, how our families feel and how our friends IRL and online feel. What we see and read and hear everyday. That's all we can do. Do you just want to continue to ignore what we say and default to "Black people just don't know him?" or do you want to listen to what we actually have to say? No single one of us are representative of the AA voting block across the entire country. Not even all of GAF is. But where there is smoke there tends to be fire and we've been saying (and even the greater media has picked up on this) pretty much the same thing over and over again. I'm getting tired of repeating myself to be honest. If its not the actual AA community on GAF (which IS NOT a monolith of course but many of us have been saying the same thing over and over again) you will listen to, who will it be?

I still remember the social security chained cpi debacle. Obama wasn't that much of a progressive.

Obama ran as more of a centrist. He was not at the far left of the Democratic party then and he isn't now. That doesn't change the fact that we have had many positive, progressive changes under his presidency. This purity test for progressive-ness has to stop. Can we acknowledge that the United States of America is a Center to Center-Right country? Can we acknowledge the work the man has done? Not getting the public option or better gun control or whatever doesn't make him a failure or within inches of a Republican (I'm not sure if you're suggesting that last bit but I've seen too many people say that of Obama or Clinton and they probably would have said that of Biden too who is a pretty right leaning Democrat)

It wasn't just the voters; it was Dems in government allowing themselves to be bullied by Republican messaging and running away from Obama, instead of rallying around him and running on his accomplishments.

The entire party let Obama down.

I will never not be salty about this >_<

Dems can be cowards sometimes

You want to see people coming together to affect government? Look at the Tea Party. They've come out in midterms, they've started local, they've moved up. Putting aside how anyone feels about them, what the Tea Party has accomplished in under a decade is amazing and is how things should be done in this country. Step by step, they have significantly changed the face of the Republican Party with dedication, work, sweat and voting consistently. Their politicians that fail or stray from the message get discarded and replaced by someone else because they're voting for causes and not saviors. They did not start from the top down with idealistic and unreachable goals.

Meanwhile, we have a growing personality cult springing up (again) in Sanders and it's so incredibly frustrating to witness. It's like watching someone unfamiliar with chess try to win on the first turn by barreling immediately towards King. Nothing from Bernie's campaign to date has shown me he is capable of igniting the same sort of fiery the Tea Party has been enjoying since Barack was elected. Revolution? Where does it come from? Turnout is down. GOP controls Congress. If your support of Sanders hinges on him catalyzing change then you are ignoring reality or don't understand that a President is not a dictator. Frankly, it feels like he is fueling his campaign by promising things that he knows he will not be able to deliver in our current political climate, and doing so in such a pivotal moment when Democrats and the minorities who vote for them have so much to lose.

It's unsettling.

Yep, yep. I share a lot of these feelings.

 

[ApharmdX]

Absolute bullshit. Hillary is completely loathed by everyone who isn't a firm Democrat. Conservatives think shes pure evil and independents dont believe a single word she says.

Yeah, the inevitability that Hillary supporters ascribe to her requires a heavy suspension of disbelief. She's one of the most polarizing figures on the political stage right now, and her favorability ratings among independents are not great.

I think she can win the general election because the GOP has zero serious candidates and is in the process of dramatic implosion. In a year with a serious Republican candidate Hillary would make me pretty nervous. I'm also wondering how many Bernie supporters are going to sit out the general election rather than vote for Hillary. There seems to be a great divide in the Democratic Party right now, where voters who are primarily concerned about fiscal issues may not care to show up to the voting booth for social issues (which I think is a dangerous mistake).

 

[ibyea]

Obama ran as more of a centrist. He was not at the far left of the Democratic party then and he isn't now. That doesn't change the fact that we have had many positive, progressive changes under his presidency. This purity test for progressive-ness has to stop. Can we acknowledge that the United States of America is a Center to Center-Right country? Can we acknowledge the work the man has done? Not getting the public option or better gun control or whatever doesn't make him a failure or within inches of a Republican (I'm not sure if you're suggesting that last bit but I've seen too many people say that of Obama or Clinton and they probably would have said that of Biden too who is a pretty right leaning Democrat)

The example I mentioned is not a centrist thing. That is a regressive right wing thing. I am not even judging him on any purity and he still fails. And I don't even blame Obama for not getting the public option. That's on Joe Lieberman. And don't misunderstand me, if I turned back time, I would tell people to vote for Obama, thanks to his supreme court judge picking, gay marriage was legalized, for example, so that is certainly better than the Republicans, but no, he is not the liberal president I am looking for and in many ways, is a third way democrat of the 90s.

 

[OuterLimits]

Looks like Trump will get close to 100,000 votes despite 8 people in the race. Impressive. So much for the media saying his supporters won't show up to vote.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Yeah, the inevitability that Hillary supporters ascribe to her requires a heavy suspension of disbelief. She's one of the most polarizing figures on the political stage right now, and her favorability ratings among independents are not great.

I think she can win the general election because the GOP has zero serious candidates and is in the process of dramatic implosion. In a year with a serious Republican candidate Hillary would make me pretty nervous. I'm also wondering how many Bernie supporters are going to sit out the general election rather than vote for Hillary. There seems to be a great divide in the Democratic Party right now, where voters who are primarily concerned about fiscal issues may not care to show up to the voting booth for social issues (which I think is a dangerous mistake).

Here's a dirty secret:

Worry more about Hillary's supporters instead. A baby boomer growing up in a world where socialism and communism was the threat is not going to vote for a man who describes himself as the enemy they triumphed over 16 years ago. Not to mention the DNC itself who will abandon Sanders should he get the nominee.

If Sanders makes the general he will get hammered from the media as well as the Republicans. Hillary is essentially tied with him at the moment and she's getting pounded by the media, the republicans AND Bernie's support.

 

[johnsmith]

Here's a dirty secret:

Worry more about Hillary's supporters instead. A baby boomer growing up in a world where socialism and communism was the threat is not going to vote for a man who describes himself as the enemy they triumphed over 16 years ago. Not to mention the DNC itself who will abandon Sanders should he get the nominee.

If Sanders makes the general he will get hammered from the media as well as the Republicans. Hillary is essentially tied with him at the moment and she's getting pounded by the media, the republicans AND Bernie's support.

He just needs to pick her as his VP. Problem solved.

 

[Basileus777]

He just needs to pick her as his VP. Problem solved.

I doubt she'd even want the position.

 

[Chezzymann]

If Bernie loses to Hillary, I wonder if a significant portion of his fanbase will move over to trump. After reading a lot of reddit posts it seems like a significant portion of Bernie supporters are mainly supporting him due to him being anti establishment and against superpacs and aren't really focusing on the social issues or whatever. And Hillary is like the definition of establishment

 

[OuterLimits]

The total Democrat and Republican vote is pretty close. Seems the Republicans have a bit more.

Can someone explain to me why CNN shows Clinton with 2 more delegates(on CNN website) than Sanders despite getting crushed? I'm not a Democrat, so not very familiar with how the delegate system works.

 

[Robot Pants]

If Bernie loses to Hillary, I wonder if a significant portion of his fanbase will move over to trump. After reading a lot of reddit posts it seems like a significant portion of Bernie supporters are mainly supporting him due to him being anti establishment and against superpacs and aren't really focusing on the social issues or whatever. And Hillary is like the definition of establishment

Maybe but I doubt it. I know if Bernie loses I will simply lose all interest and just not vote.
Because like you said Hilary is the definition of establishment and if it's her running then i couldn't care less. And there's no way I'm voting for any of those republican whack jobs haha

 

[Clydefrog]

I like how earlier in the evening, MSNBC's Chris Hayes accidentally called Sanders "Bernie Sandwiches."

Fuckin' MSNBC has been doing all their shows at restaurants for like 4 days now. It's annoying as hell with the background noise and random people eating awesome burgers.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Maybe but I doubt it. I know if Bernie loses I will simply lose all interest and just not vote.
Because like you said Hilary is the definition of and i couldn't care less. And there's no way I'm voting for any of those republican whack jobs haha

Smart move. Fuck the country over by not supporting Hilary and possibly giving the country to one of those "whack jobs".

 

[danm999]

If Bernie loses to Hillary, I wonder if a significant portion of his fanbase will move over to trump. After reading a lot of reddit posts it seems like a significant portion of Bernie supporters are mainly supporting him due to him being anti establishment and against superpacs and aren't really focusing on the social issues or whatever. And Hillary is like the definition of establishment

Inevitably some people will, but I think both candidates have repeatedly tried to stop that by saying both of them are eminently more suitable than anybody on the GOP side (like they did at the end of the last debate).

The bigger danger I'd say is that the non-nominee's supporters stay home.

 

[Robot Pants]

Smart move. Fuck the country over by not supporting Hilary and possibly giving the country to one of those "whack jobs".

Thanks I'll keep your input in mind

 

[rec0ded1]

Bill don't be sick :'(

https://gfycat.com/AffectionateFatherlyCrayfish

 

[OuterLimits]

Smart move. Fuck the country over by not supporting Hilary and possibly giving the country to one of those "whack jobs".

This is why I think Hillary could struggle in the general. The enthusiasm for her is nowhere close to what Obama had.

 

[God Dayumm]

Smart move. Fuck the country over by not supporting Hilary and possibly giving the country to one of those "whack jobs".

Lol the hyperbole. The GOP is even more fragmented than the democrats, and it is ok to sit it out if either of the candidates are inconsequential to you.

 

[nib95]

Maybe but I doubt it. I know if Bernie loses I will simply lose all interest and just not vote.
Because like you said Hilary is the definition of establishment and if it's her running then i couldn't care less. And there's no way I'm voting for any of those republican whack jobs haha

This is a silly thing to do. There's something called the lesser of two evils, and it can make a difference to millions of lives.

 

[Feep]

Lol the hyperbole. The GOP is even more fragmented than the democrats, and it is ok to sit it out if either of the candidates are inconsequential to you.

If you believe the difference between Hillary Clinton and any Republican is "inconsequential", you frankly don't understand very much about the current state of affairs in the United States.

 

[royalan]

This is why I think Hillary could struggle in the general. The enthusiasm for her is nowhere close to what Obama had.

To be fair, neither is the enthusiasm for Bernie. The Obama coalition was made up of more than college liberals.

 

[OuterLimits]

To be fair, neither is the enthusiasm for Bernie. The Obama coalition was made up of more than college liberals.

Agreed. Plus he has his own challenges. The Obama coalition was gigantic, especially in 2008. He even managed to get some moderate Republicans.

 

[ICKE]

To be fair, neither is the enthusiasm for Bernie. The Obama coalition was made up of more than college liberals.

Progressives could be in real trouble. Voter turnout has fallen significantly from 2008 while the opposite is true for republicans. The party is in a state of fluctuation and there is a danger that many people will be disenfranchised after this primary - despite who wins the nomination..

The dynamic is slightly different on the right. Even though the republican party is an incoherent mess (evangelical, moderate, tea party and libertarian voting blocs), they really want to win the general election. Lots of people will vote this year despite who the candidate is.

So next autumn could be a total democalypse unless people can really have a constructive discussion during this primary, regarding what should be the main focus of the party. I think Hillary Clinton is already adapting to this environment, it was quite evident when I saw her N.H speech.

 

[mo60]

The total Democrat and Republican vote is pretty close. Seems the Republicans have a bit more.

Can someone explain to me why CNN shows Clinton with 2 more delegates(on CNN website) than Sanders despite getting crushed? I'm not a Democrat, so not very familiar with how the delegate system works.

Superdelegates if I recall.

 

[Indicate]

Agreed. Plus he has his own challenges. The Obama coalition was gigantic, especially in 2008. He even managed to get some moderate Republicans.

Bernie's already pulling in those moderate republicans.

 

[Kathian]

Truth is Dems did not field enough candidates because Clinton clearly has an ability to charm those around her but deeply struggles to replicate this with the public - and they thought she'd walk it.

Sanders is a poor speaker but honestly to those claiming he can't get done what he wants done; why does this make Clinton a good candidate?

To me there are just two bad candidates for the Dems. The dafties claiming they'd win whatever due to demographics and so just go with Clinton have really got them stuck. There should have been a backlash before the primaries about Clinton going unchallenged but its happening now.

ATM her campaign is Sanders biggest campaigner.