Support NeoGAF

[E92 M3]

It's going to be really hard for Hillary to beat Trump in the GE. I'm going to vote for her but she better not think the Presidency is all but a given at this point.

Trump needs to secure the nomination first and the GOP are doing everything they can to stop him.

If it was really hard for Hillary to beat Trump, we wouldn't be seeing the GOP trying desperately to ensure he isn't on the ticket.

Lol don't be so naive; Trump is the only "GOP" that could beat Clinton. The GOP simply put cannot afford (for the sake of control) to have Trump on the ticket.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Here in this thread I'm seeing people who claim to support Obama but also claim they will vote for Trump or a third party.

The cognitive dissonance it takes to get to that position is astounding.

Do young people value what Obama has accomplished or not? Do we want to preserve Obama's legacy or not? You can't have it both ways.

There are millions of Americans who will lose their health insurance if we make the wrong choice here. Supreme Court Justices will impact your lives for the next twenty years or more.

I'm disappointed that someone would go third party or troll vote or simply realign out of disappointment after this when it's so important to keep Trump or Cruz in their kennels, but hey, it's their vote. Like a lot of Clinton supporters I was fine voting for Bernie if he won. Now it sounds like some folks are more concerned with teaching the rest of us a lesson. I guess the whole country will get to learn a lesson, really. Maybe they don't realize that, maybe they don't care.

Can someone tell me what that lesson is exactly though, so I can know why it's more valuable than blocking demagogues from power and fucking over the very people Bernie wants to help? Because I was under the impression standing behind the spirit of a cause was just as vital in maintaining one's integrity.

I know Clinton stands for many of the things that Bernie wants to rein in, I know she's associated with some of the most vile pieces of shit in the Washington establishment, but when it comes to actually voting on policy Sanders and Clinton are clearly on the same side of the aisle. I know Clinton has more baggage than a 747, but I think at worst she'll be a kind of politcally impotent Obama with some ugly Bush qualities thrown in. Trump is a fabrication of his own desires and will probably base policy off of what he ate for lunch that day, which minority or entitlement scapegoat people are talking about the most, and who he can conveniently punish for criticizing him that week. He's a circus ringleader who can and has said anything to get people in the tent, but has lost all control of them or the animals inside. So which is worse, a shadow of Obama or a shadow of a Fascist?

Making a choice here simply to make a point is just aligning yourself with the same kind of ivory tower privileged political thinking people criticize every politician for. And I get it, I really do, we've all been idealistic and passionate to stick to our principles. If we were up against John McCain (sans Palin), I'd say go for it. But this election is nothing less than having to put down the monster Rupert Murdoch and GOP rhetoric and policy since Reagan have created and can no longer contain, while at the same time determining the future of the SCOTUS for the next 20 years.

 

[danm999]

GOP fears of Trump losing to Hillary are a cover for why they don't want Trump to win.

The real reason GOP is trying to keep Trump away from the ticket because he doesn't follow their platform at all. He is his an extreme independent that has struck a cord with the anger white Americans but also for some strange reason resonates well with minorities on jobs/economy.

If Trump wins the nomination and does become President it's the end of the GOP.

Trump is proposing to cut taxes that favour the wealthy disproportionately, repeal Dodd Frank, increase military spending, reinvade Iraq, eliminate the Estate Tax, run their tired ideas for private healthcare alternatives to Obamacare, nominate a conservative to SCOTUS, deport 12 million people that would otherwise become likely Democratic voters...

They like his policies just fine. They just realise he's a disaster candidate.

 

[Diprosalic]

It's not about seeing the world burn, it's about sending a message to the candidates as to what we want in a candidate in 4 years.

i'm not sure voting Trump if you liked Sanders would help you achieve that.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Poor Bernie. It was inevitable at some point, but I really do think he would have been a great President.

At this point everyone needs to remember that a vote for Hillary is a vote for First Gentleman Bill as well.

Considering he almost got ousted just for getting his knob polished I think that we, the American people, owe him that much at least.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Lol don't be so naive; Trump is the only "GOP" that could beat Clinton. The GOP simply put cannot afford (for the sake of control) to have Trump on the ticket.

At this point, the GOP is desperately trying to figure out how to minimize their losses down ticket, due to them knowing Trump can't win. Even having Trump on the ticket at all jeopardizes the Senate, and potentially even taking a big hit in the House. Possibly even losing some state seats and governors far down ticket as well.

Trump can't win. He lacks the votes. He lacks the demographics. He'd need to have more white support than Reagan had without the popularity Reagan had. He's toxic and unpopular by both Republicans and Democrats. He's winning primaries now due to a perfect storm of having the ticket split in a million ways. When it's down to two people, winning 30%-40% of the vote just doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[giga]

She'll probably give it to some guy from a Wall Street bank. Or the guy at the CIA who is keeping her email scandal from going to court. Both are bad for the American people.

Spot on. We watched Obama do the same with kagan and sotomayer and there's no reason to doubt shillary will continue his judicial corruption. We must bern it all down, no matter the consequences. It's for the greater good.

 

[E92 M3]

At this point, the GOP is desperately trying to figure out how to minimize their losses down ticket, due to them knowing Trump can't win. Even having Trump on the ticket at all jeopardizes the Senate, and potentially even taking a big hit in the House. Possibly even losing some state seats and governors far down ticket as well.

Trump can't win. He lacks the votes. He lacks the demographics. He'd need to have more white support than Reagan had without the popularity Reagan had. He's toxic and unpopular by both Republicans and Democrats. He's winning primaries now due to a perfect storm of having the ticket split in a million ways. When it's down to two people, winning 30%-40% of the vote just doesn't cut it anymore.

Everyone has been saying "Trump can't win" for many months now. Underestimating Trump is very foolish, in my opinion. I'd easily vote for Trump over the pure evil that is Cruz (a lot more dangerous than Trump in the long run).

Unfortunately, Kasich isn't in the running because he is the one republican I would feel 100% voting for.

 

[Gutek]

Everyone has been saying "Trump can't win" for many months now. Underestimating Trump is very foolish, in my opinion.

Well, the only way Trump can win is when people don't go out and vote. The demographics look really, really bad for him.

 

[marrec]

Everyone has been saying "Trump can't win" for many months now. Underestimating Trump is very foolish, in my opinion.

Trump winning a plurality of GOP Primary voters is very different than Trump winning a general election. I would agree that it's a bad idea to underestimate him, but his performance to this point is not as surprising as you seem to be making out.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Everyone has been saying "Trump can't win" for many months now. Underestimating Trump is very foolish, in my opinion.

If this was a two man primary between Trump and someone competent on the GOP side, Trump would be losing, badly.

People overestimated the GOP front runners. Rubio and Jeb were failures and bad candidates, but people assumed they were good and shoe ins, not expecting them to be garbage candidates.

Well, the only way Trump can win is when people don't go out and vote. The demographics look really, really bad for him.

He'd need unprecedented low minority turnout, and unprecedented high white turnout.

He needs more than low turnout. He needs low turnout in very specific areas, while maintaining turnout in the key demographics he only appeals to.

You simply cannot be president while only appealing to poorly educated white males. The numbers aren't there.

 

[ahoyhoy]

This is an emotional argument, based on feelings. There are a multitude of options for letting your voice be known; the Presidency is but one of many avenues through which you can exert your voice. Work on the folks who actually author and negotiate laws, for instance.

Y'know what's asinine? Handing over the judiciary to folks who would see your vision buried for a generation.

Let's play-out a possible scenario, shall we?

Let's say that the temper tantrum throwers get their way here: Hillary loses here in 2016.
Great. The wench was too moderate anyway!
Trump or Cruz is elected instead.
The new President nominates Scalia's replacement, one in the mold of Scalia.
Ginsburg or Breyer are pretty old; odds are that one of them doesn't make it through the first term.
The new President replaces one. The court is now 6-3 conservative.
Anthony Kennedy turns 80 in a few months. He sees his shot at retiring when the new President takes office.
That 6-3 majority gets younger. The chance to flip the court to a liberal lean fades.
It'll be a few decades before the court could ever lean left again.

Then, in 2020, the voters have had enough of President Trump's asshattery - glorious backlash election occurs!
Bernie 2.0 is elected.
He brings with him coattails: a Democratic Congress!
The dream is being realized!

Bernie 2.0 and the new Congress set out immediately to enact their agenda.
The first batch of bills hits Bernie 2.0's desk. He takes out his pen and signs it, to great progressive celebration.
And as soon as the ink dries on Bernie 2.0's signature, the GOP or their corporate buddies file suit in court to stop this legislation from ever taking effect.

Ruling.
Appeal.
Appellate ruling.
Appeal.
SCOTUS, by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4, rules to kill Bernie 2.0's legislative achievement.

Repeat for anything remotely controversial that gets passed Bernie 2.0 and his Congress.

Liberals are horrified to realize: "what good is winning in 2020 and beyond if there's a judiciary in place, ready to kill anything that's challenged before them?"

..

I'm guessing that you consider yourself serious about the long-term viability of Bernie's policy agenda. In which case, I'd say it's foolish to condemn that agenda to judicial death for 20-30 years.

Don't give me a response on how you feel. Or how Hillary is too moderate, or too corporate, or too scheming. None of those responses substantively counter what I've plainly laid-out before you. The mechanics of how our system works don't give a damn about your feelings.

If you're at all serious about keeping Bernie's vision alive for the future, so that we can elect Bernie 2.0 knowing that his agenda is viable, there's only one logical choice in November.

I agree with all this and I understand the practical reasons to vote for Hilliary. If I were in a swing state, I'm 99% sure I'd vote for her over pretty much any GOP candidate in the field for this reason and many others. I'm sure Hillary will make an adequate president and at the least won't backslide most of the liberal accomplishments of the last 8 years even if she does little to really push for more sweeping reform especially in terms of the US's international policy.

But at the same time.. it just doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel like I'm actively participating in the process. It feels like I'm just taking my turn plugging the leak in the dam when faced with the choice of whether or not to let the whole damn thing burst rather than take a risk and try to actually fix the thing.

I really really wish we could just get something like Instant Runoff Voting in place on the federal level. I want to feel like my voice is being heard in the voting booth without feeling the guilt of indirectly supporting someone I feel would damage the country short/long term. It's an incredibly frustrating feeling that, while I know has no bearing on the course of this election, that I wish would actually be addressed at some higher levels of government with a reasonable degree of seriousness.

i'm not sure voting Trump if you liked Sanders would help you achieve that.

Oh I would neeeeeever vote for someone was despicable and morally reprehensible as Trump. I think anyone who supported Sanders who's switching to Trump is basically someone who doesn't think about practical political issues and just wants to upset the apple cart any way they can, which likely won't work out how they're hoping.

 

[Matt]

Unfortunately, Kasich isn't in the running because he is the one republican I would feel 100% voting for.

Hopefully that's just because you don't know much about Kasich.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Demographics have changed in the last decade. Any and every Republican that toes the party line (to say nothing about lunatics like Trump and Cruz) faces an uphill battle in the GE. That will NOT change unless the party changes some of its platforms and positions.

 

[crazygambit]

I'm not American, so this might be a very stupid question, but what happens to the delegates Rubio had?

Are they split amongst the other candidates based on the votes they got in each state? That would seem like the normal way to do it, but then you have to consider that the votes of one candidate aren't likely to be split evenly, but are more likely to go to a candidate closer in ideology.

Or are they just lost and no one can get them?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Everyone has been saying "Trump can't win" for many months now. Underestimating Trump is very foolish, in my opinion. I'd easily vote for Trump over the pure evil that is Cruz (a lot more dangerous than Trump in the long run).

Unfortunately, Kasich isn't in the running because he is the one republican I would feel 100% voting for.

Saying Trump can't win the republican primary is completely different from saying "Trump can't win the general election because the only people who would vote for him is basically white males which are no where near enough to carry a candidate in the general election"

 

[E92 M3]

Well, the only way Trump can win is when people don't go out and vote. The demographics look really, really bad for him.

It looks bad, but not over.

Trump winning a plurality of GOP Primary voters is very different than Trump winning a general election. I would agree that it's a bad idea to underestimate him, but his performance to this point is not as surprising as you seem to be making out.

It is very surprising actually; no analyst (and many here) expected him to get this far.

If this was a two man primary between Trump and someone competent on the GOP side, Trump would be losing, badly.

People overestimated the GOP front runners. Rubio and Jeb were failures and bad candidates, but people assumed they were good and shoe ins, not expecting them to be garbage candidates.



He'd need unprecedented low minority turnout, and unprecedented high white turnout.

He needs more than low turnout. He needs low turnout in very specific areas, while maintaining turnout in the key demographics he only appeals to.

You simply cannot be president while only appealing to poorly educated white males. The numbers aren't there.

I think you are assuming too much about this appeal. Many people are though. A vertical slice of his voters might reveal quite an interesting spectrum.

Hopefully that's just because you don't know much about Kasich.

Politics is all about choosing the lesser of evils. Every politician has skeletons in their closet.

 

[Kountry]

Well, the only way Trump can win is when people don't go out and vote. The demographics look really, really bad for him.

If the GOP got smart and threw their full weight behind Trump, I could see him pulling off the upset. Like it or not, the guy seems to be energizing people that usually wouldn't bother at all to vote for him. Even if he didn't win the presidency, he could pull enough people in to affect the down ticket enough for them to hold the house, and maybe the Senate.

Thankfully (or sadly, depending on your point of view), they aren't that smart. They want a leashed dog, not a wild animal they can't control.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Well, the only way Trump can win is when people don't go out and vote. The demographics look really, really bad for him.

The thing that scares me is that Trump does seem to be mobilizing his own new segment of voters.

One thing that democratic political machines throughout history seem to be slow to realize is that there are ALWAYS new voters to reach out to. Has America ever hit above 60%-65% for voter turnout?

 

[danm999]

Trump winning a plurality of GOP Primary voters is very different than Trump winning a general election. I would agree that it's a bad idea to underestimate him, but his performance to this point is not as surprising as you seem to be making out.

Yep. I agree Trump should not be underestimated, but nor should his performance be overestimated simply because he's winning a plurality of votes in a party that is going through a severe electoral crisis.

He has been running one kind of race against several opponents all dragging each other down and splitting each other's votes, money and resources. If there weren't like six establishment candidates in the race one of them might have been able to rise. Instead they all foolishly assumed he'd go away on his own and all blew hundreds of millions of dollars attacking each other.

Now he will be running a very different kind of race against a single opponent with a party behind her that appears substantially more unified than the one behind him, and an electoral map that already appears unfavourable to him.

And if Morning Joe this morning has been any indication his first salvo at Clinton has been to say she lacks strength and stamina which is the same tired attack he uses with everybody.

So yeah, he might win. It's possible. But at the moment I'm betting he'd rather be in Clinton's position than his own.

 

[Antiwhippy]

If the GOP got smart and threw their full weight behind Trump, I could see him pulling off the upset. Like it or not, the guy seems to be energizing people that usually wouldn't bother at all to vote for him. Even if he didn't win the presidency, he could pull enough people in to affect the down ticket enough for them to hold the house, and maybe the Senate.

Thankfully (or sadly, depending on your point of view), they aren't that smart. They want a leashed dog, not a wild animal they can't control.

The demographic that he energises does matter though.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Obama Obama Clinton (and Clinton again in 2020?)

Can't wait for Chelsea, Jeb (lol), Malia, etc to become the President sometime between 2024-2032. Those political dynasties. Thank goodness Obama was a combo breaker.

 

[Antiwhippy]

The thing that scares me is that Trump does seem to be mobilizing his own new segment of voters.

One thing that democratic political machines throughout history seem to be slow to realize is that there are ALWAYS new voters to reach out to. Has America ever hit above 60%-65% for voter turnout?

New segment? It's basically the tea party finally bearing fruit.

His rise was basically the culmination of years of revolt in the GOP. It's not new.

 

[theignoramus]

You simply cannot be president while only appealing to poorly educated white males. The numbers aren't there.

Trump won 4 of 10 college educated voters in Florida and 38% of the non Cuban Hispanic vote.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Obama Obama Clinton (and Clinton again in 2020?)

Can't wait for Chelsea, Jeb (lol), Malia, etc to become the President sometime between 2024-2032. Those political dynasties. Thank goodness Obama was a combo breaker.

Yes let's blame "Dynasties" and not the weak opposition running against them.

 

[marrec]

Trump won 4 of 10 college educated voters in Florida and 38% of the non Cuban Hispanic vote.

Those numbers are dismal for him if they hold for the General Election.

 

[Earthstrike]

I agree with all this and I understand the practical reasons to vote for Hilliary. If I were in a swing state, I'm 99% sure I'd vote for her over pretty much any GOP candidate in the field for this reason and many others. I'm sure Hillary will make an adequate president and at the least won't backslide most of the liberal accomplishments of the last 8 years even if she does little to really push for more sweeping reform especially in terms of the US's international policy.

But at the same time.. it just doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel like I'm actively participating in the process. It feels like I'm just taking my turn plugging the leak in the dam when faced with the choice of whether or not to let the whole damn thing burst rather than take a risk and try to actually fix the thing.

I really really wish we could just get something like Instant Runoff Voting in place on the federal level. I want to feel like my voice is being heard in the voting booth without feeling the guilt of indirectly supporting someone I feel would damage the country short/long term. It's an incredibly frustrating feeling that, while I know has no bearing on the course of this election, that I wish would actually be addressed at some higher levels of government with a reasonable degree of seriousness.



Oh I would neeeeeever vote for someone was despicable and morally reprehensible as Trump. I think anyone who supported Sanders who's switching to Trump is basically someone who doesn't think about practical political issues and just wants to upset the apple cart any way they can, which likely won't work out how they're hoping.

I actually think your interpretation of what causes a shift in policy to occur may be incorrect. Contrary to what people believe, it's not politicians that dictate what people think, it's what people think that dictates politician's policy. There can be no greater event to shift the right wing left than to consecutively lose elction after election after election. The right wing will have to start putting up more liberal candidates in order to be competitive, which in turn gives the left the ability to shift left to court more of the "far left".

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I personally just don't feel electing a walking disaster like Trump or a monster like Cruz is going to pave the way for a Bernie-like in 8 years. Electing one of those will only empower and further legitimize their brand of supporters. Heaven forbid white middle class people remain mostly unscathed within such a presidency, how do you think people are going to swing afterwards? 8 years of generally favorable feelings about Obama is what's paved the way for someone like Sanders, a self-professed democratic socialist and effectively a humanist, to be as relevant as he has been this election.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Those numbers are dismal for him if they hold for the General Election.

I bet things get worse for him, not better.

 

[marrec]

I bet things get worse for him, not better.

I 100% agree. We're looking at him getting numbers from GOP Primary voters, the most extreme and fringe of the GOPs potential voting pool.

 

[ahoyhoy]

I actually think your interpretation of what causes a shift in policy to occur may be incorrect. Contrary to what people believe, it's not politicians that dictate what people think, it's what people think that dictates politician's policy. There can be no greater event to shift the right wing left than to consecutively lose elction after election after election. The right wing will have to start putting up more liberal candidates in order to be competitive, which in turn gives the left the ability to shift left to court more of the "far left".

No, I understand that very well. I think both play a key role in influencing the balance of politics. When it comes to bottom-up policy though, giving voters more tools to express their true political leanings without having to fear risking the least-ideal choice from obtaining office helps to facilitate this realignment of the political spectrum better than simply hoping either party takes notice of public outcry outside of the polling place.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Yes let's blame "Dynasties" and not the weak opposition running against them.

You're going to make the argument that every elected President since the late 80s was the best choice/all other choices were weak? It's hardly a secret that there is an advantage to being the son or spouse of a previous President when running for a political position. I'm not saying that's the only reason said people were elected, just that I personally wish we had more variety in our Presidential selections.

 

[Slayven]

I 100% agree. We're looking at him getting numbers from GOP Primary voters, the most extreme and fringe of the GOPs potential voting pool.

Never underestimate the power of hating a motherfucker.

 

[Tesseract]

Never underestimate the power of hating a motherfucker.

your misdeeds and injustices will become punishing

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I do not understand these posts, considering GAF is full of Hillary supporters who are pretty toxic, while at the same time decrying about Sander's extreme supporters on reddit.

You saying he can not call out Hillary supporters smugness? You guys realize that the way you treat opposition supporters also have an impact on who they may vote, right? Even if I do not believe they are in enough numbers to be worried about.

So telling someone to chill because they see "H->" avatars is being smug?

 

[BudokaiMR2]

New segment? It's basically the tea party finally bearing fruit.

His rise was basically the culmination of years of revolt in the GOP. It's not new.

I hope I am wrong but it feels bigger than that.

Wasn't one of the biggest problems with the tea party the fact that they were all bluster and didn't actually turn up to vote? Hasn't it been in decline since it started? Then again, I am not even sure how many official teabaggers there are in the House for example. 20? 30?

Feels like Trump is feeding off what was built there but actually motivating them to vote while also expanding into new even crazier territory.

 

[googleplex]

New segment? It's basically the tea party finally bearing fruit.

His rise was basically the culmination of years of revolt in the GOP. It's not new.

Yes let's blame "Dynasties" and not the weak opposition running against them.

The problem with blaming "Dynasties" or "Weak opposition" is the it removes the blame from the voters.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Trump won 4 of 10 college educated voters in Florida and 38% of the non Cuban Hispanic vote.

Of Republicans.

Which means of the total numbers of those demographics he did terribly.

Also 40% of both of those demographics isn't that hot.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I hope I am wrong but it feels bigger than that.

Wasn't one of the biggest problems with the tea party the fact that they were all bluster and didn't actually turn up to vote? Hasn't it been in decline since it started? Then again, I am not even sure how many official teabaggers there are in the House for example. 20? 30?

Feels like Trump is feeding off what was built there but actually motivating them to vote while also expanding into new even crazier territory.

He's also motivating an opposition, which does include those that have always voted Republican.

 

[legacyzero]

Uhhh.... What???

My head hurts

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

The key to that is down ticket races. That support bleeds both up and down the ticket.

The idea of Bernie as the one true Savior is as wrong as those that saw Obama as the one true Savior. The reality is the wave election gave him the support needed to pass progressive legislation the party could not otherwise. The party adjusted.

And then prpgressives threw up a mission accomplished banner and didn't show up in 2010. The party fell back.


If we want someone like Bernie to be viable and effective at the top of the ticket, we have to realize this is a 30 year project where you need to vote every single year, and sometimes more when there's special elections.

I would use this as my signature if I could, I don't care how obnoxiously long it looked.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Didn't his camp say supers don't matter and are undemocratic?

Oh probably.
His camp has said a lot of things.

 

[zethren]

Uhhh.... What???

My head hurts

Maybe this country deserves Trump.

Fuck.

 

[Pedrito]

Uhhh.... What???

My head hurts

Not everyone is a single-issue voter.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Not everyone is a single-issue voter.

no you're wrong, clearly those people are fucking idiots who just haven't heard of their savior Bernie who will end all free trade agreements and turn back the clock of globalization.

 

[Clefargle]

But at the same time.. it just doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel like I'm actively participating in the process. It feels like I'm just taking my turn plugging the leak in the dam when faced with the choice of whether or not to let the whole damn thing burst rather than take a risk and try to actually fix the thing.

I really really wish we could just get something like Instant Runoff Voting in place on the federal level. I want to feel like my voice is being heard in the voting booth without feeling the guilt of indirectly supporting someone I feel would damage the country short/long term. It's an incredibly frustrating feeling that, while I know has no bearing on the course of this election, that I wish would actually be addressed at some higher levels of government with a reasonable degree of seriousness.
.

Here is the crux, the feeling that any presidential candidate will be the one to "fix it all" is wrongheaded. It's the same mentality the trump supporters have and it ignores reality. Regardless of how voting "makes you feel" substantive changes can be made with the correct president plus downticket support. This is Clinton's strong point, she supports downticket dems. With a dem controlled senate you could very well begin to see substantive change in certain areas. The poster your were replying to is addressing these "emotional arguments" for voting. They are valid, but ultimately don't change anything. I supported Clinton in 08 until Obama won. I didn't expect the moon from him and got let down. But that's ok, some change did happen though. We got out of Iraq, passed healthcare reform, and marriage equality. However it feels, it's not a zero sum game, especially when Clinton is more liberal than Obama and the SCOTUS situation.

 

[Cheebo]

Uhhh.... What???

My head hurts

There is a thing called not single issue voters.

 

[AstroNut325]

Everyone has been saying "Trump can't win" for many months now. Underestimating Trump is very foolish, in my opinion. I'd easily vote for Trump over the pure evil that is Cruz (a lot more dangerous than Trump in the long run).

Unfortunately, Kasich isn't in the running because he is the one republican I would feel 100% voting for.

Isn't Kasich just as evil as Cruz?

 

[vainglorious]

Gaming the system. Overturning the will of the voters.

Truly the revolution we deserve.

The Sanders campaign was never unbiased in its complaints and attacks against the super delegates. Anyone that thought differently was kidding themselves. Campaigns are always going to frame a narrative that benefits them.

It is a little ironic though.

 

[legacyzero]

Not everyone is a single-issue voter.

There is a thing called not single issue voters.

That's not the issue here. The issue is people voting for somebody who SUPPORTED the trade agreements that led us here. AND she's also supported the TPP until she "took a deeper look at it".

I'm not a single issue voter. But Hillary has been bad on multiple issues historically. And it's just baffling that people look past that.

no you're wrong, clearly those people are fucking idiots who just haven't heard of their savior Bernie who will end all free trade agreements and turn back the clock of globalization.

Again, not the issue here. Globalization is great, if it's fair, and big companies aren't penalized for moving their jobs off shore. You dont have to turn the clock back in order to balance it.