Yes, I know that. That doesn't really run against my point, that democrats in all states deserve to be represented.
April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Ogrekiller
Member
After Alberta went orange and red you would think Canadians would know better than to go on this line of reasoning.
This is unseemly and childish. Pull it together man.
Eh? You really think that Hillary should get Sanders' supporters by default, even though chunks of her record, character, and politics are diametrically-opposed to his? That doesn't even make sense.
Ogrekiller
Member
And the opposite should be true if Sanders wins?
Not to mention that at this rate there might not even be any need for the BernieBro vote. If the Republicans alienate enough people to sit out on the sidelines Clinton would not even need the BB vote to win.
No, if Bernie somehow got the nomination, I'd expect him to court Hillary voters. Just because Trump and Cruz are terrible human beings, that doesn't mean that the eventual Democrat nominee gets their opponent's voters by default.
Ogrekiller
Member
Don't expect Hillary voters and the DNC to line up behind him then. He is not entitled to their votes.
:lol
Seriously though the more rabid supporters on any side of a political party or for any particular candidate can be pretty annoying. In fact, even the more rational supporters can come off as condescending, myself unfortunately included sometimes.
It's important to remember that it is simply something that will happen in an election and try to be as clear in your own views as possible, and try not to go off on people because of how they view your candidate (not saying you are, but just as a general guideline).
If there's anyone being especially annoying I'm sure the mods will give them a short break from posting until after the convention, or you can bring up their behavior to a mod.
And in general, I don't think people have been underestimating Sanders of late. They definitely did earlier in his campaign, but now many predictions for Sanders in the future seem pretty reasonable. Just my opinion though
theignoramus
Member
Happy for Bernie. Each win is symbolically important.
Those honk for Bernie signs did their job. Both Trump and Clinton lose big tonight, proud of this state.
At least I can remember the good times of tonight when I'm forced to vote for Hillary in the general.
I'm in the UK so granted I don't have a sort of innate knowledge of US politics, but what are the odds of the superdelegates changing to support Bernie? Without them he's only around 200 delegates behind Hilary.
And The Times here were suggesting that despite Cruz's win he isn't popular either and in fact is aligned with Trump in some conservative views. This is to say that people at a convention wouldn't feel comfortable voting for him, so who knows which candidate would get the nomination if it came to that.
Also, I'm conflicted on Hilary getting the nomination. On the one hand she has the political machine to go head-to-head with Trump. On the other, I feel like purely because of her surname and being perceived as the 'establishment' candidate that would give Trump (in particular) lots of ammunition. The second point probably applies less to Bernie?
And The Times here were suggesting that despite Cruz's win he isn't popular either and in fact is aligned with Trump in some conservative views. This is to say that people at a convention wouldn't feel comfortable voting for him, so who knows which candidate would get the nomination if it came to that.
Also, I'm conflicted on Hilary getting the nomination. On the one hand she has the political machine to go head-to-head with Trump. On the other, I feel like purely because of her surname and being perceived as the 'establishment' candidate that would give Trump (in particular) lots of ammunition. The second point probably applies less to Bernie?
You can view Clintons stance on Climate Change and the environment on her website: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
Alternatively you can view her stance and votes on the issue through time here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm
&
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Energy_+_Oil.htm
I think if you look at her statements and votes at any point in her political career you'll find she's as much of an environmentalist as Obama is and just as importantly, she knows how to get progress in the area, not even through congress but through the UN, because of her tenure as SOS.
I don't know if that's what your looking for, but if you're looking for someone to carry forward Obama's environmental legacy, Hillary is it.
Thanks for your post. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.
I think that Hillary will probably do a lot of good work on this issue as president, but I don't have much faith in Hillary being progressive on this issue and that is what I want in a candidate in this election. I think that Bernie would be more progressive in combating climate change and protecting the environment as president. Like I said, this is one of the most important issues to me and a big reason why I love Obama.
Hillary doesn't discuss environmental issues enough in my opinion. Bernie makes it part of almost every speech.
I'm also disappointed how long it took for her to announce that she was against the Keystone pipeline. Bernie was against it day one. He also has a detailed plan for solving environmental issues and making a push towards using renewable energy.
I remember when Bernie said climate change is the biggest threat facing the nation during one of the democratic debates. I absolutely loved that. This is why I love Bernie. He understands the severity and the threat of climate change.
I voted for Bernie because I think that he will be the most progressive on the environment and climate change.
It's not even a matter of should. Bernie's policies already have more appeal with Hillary supporters than the other way around. Hillary supporters though are more likely to believe that it's asking for too much to get support from a Republican controlled Congress. There's more to it but this sums up their fear and apprehension over Bernie winning the nom.
Mortimer Brewster
Member
They don't want Cruz either, enter Kasich as the dark horse. The Hilaryites who are afraid of Kasich will try to downplay the possibility but he likely has as good a chance as anyone to emerge from the RNC the nominee.
You are the one who asked for convincing to vote in the general, not the primary.Thanks for your post. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.
I think that Hillary will probably do a lot of good work on this issue as president, but I don't have much faith in Hillary being progressive on this issue and that is what I want in a candidate in this election. I think that Bernie would be more progressive in combating climate change and protecting the environment as president. Like I said, this is one of the most important issues to me and a big reason why I love Obama.
Hillary doesn't discuss environmental issues enough in my opinion. Bernie makes it part of almost every speech.
I'm also disappointed how long it took for her to announce that she was against the Keystone pipeline. Bernie was against it day one. He also has a detailed plan for solving environmental issues and making a push towards using renewable energy.
I don't want to hear "I don't have much faith in Hillary" as an answer to given evidence of her platform and stances from you especially since you're the one who asked how people like you would be convinced to vote for Hillary. If that is your answer, one based in emotion and feelings ('I don't have faith", "I love Obama"), rational argument and discussion are unlikely to change your mind unless you allow it.
Hillary released a climate change plan before Bernie realized he couldn't only stump on Wall Street issues. Who is the one that genuinely looked ahead and planned and thought about the subject proactively rather than reactively? Bernie also recently revealed his shallow knowledge of his own favored subject, what makes you think he has the knowledge to advance progressive climate change policies? If he mentions climate change in every speech, what are the specifics? The nature of having a speech that touches all bases means it is unlikely to have anything other than lofty words.
Denying a vote to both someone who has a climate change policy and a climate change denier is treating both their positions the same. If your stance in that situation is to abstain your vote, you weren't serious about your single issue anyway, you were just voting on the basis of your personal feelings about the candidates.
On top of all that, the presidency is not a single-issue office. It is your privilege to make climate change your one issue. If Bernie ever won the nomination, I wouldn't be running around flatuating about how he doesn't talk about women's issues enough, and therefore I won't vote for him. I would logically consider him the better choice over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
If your local candidates focus on local issues, of which climate change is low priority, would you not vote in the local race because they're "not talking about it as much"? If you live in a flippable district but the House representative candidate doesn't talk about climate change much, are you going to not vote for him or her? If said candidate is progressive on every issue but meh on climate change, would you not vote and just let the climate change denying candidate win?
What would you have accomplished for your single issue?
balladofwindfishes
Member
Kasich did awful last night. Nobody likes him, except his home state. He lacks any sort of support to be the nominee, and the voters are against the GOP picking some random nobody as the candidate instead of whoever has the most votes, whether they hit the delegate threshold or not.
gutter_trash
Banned
yeah, like giving up the White House to a Republican
He's not getting picked. He has bombed everywhere besides Ohio. Kasich himself was hyping up Wisconsin because it was a state tailor made for him to do well and he flatlined.
They're either picking Cruz or a wildcard like Ryan.
So you think Trump or Cruz would defeat Bernie in a GE?
I'd hardly call a bunch of people on the internet a barometer for anything. If Hillary loses it would be likely because she didn't manage to get enough people to vote for her against the worst candidates that I've ever seen on the Republican side. If she somehow loses in November against Cruz/Trump any complains about Sanders playing spoiler would be completely misguided.
I still think Bernie would be favored.
My comment was more for the folks weighing whether or not to support Hillary in the event that she's the nominee.
I want to see the opposite happen and have Sanders supporters admit that the people have spoken and chosen the person who the majority feel is best representative of their positions from the choices.
brochiller
Member
Explain.
I don't know why you think that isn't a possibility considering the fact that he actually said something like this.
Seriously, and there's a lot more where that came from. There's also the clip of him saying "Yes we will raise taxes", there's the fact that he's on camera praising Castro, the sheer difference in tax amounts between Sanders and any Republican candidate that can be played over and over again in ads, and so much more that the Republicans didn't even begin to uncover.
We spent the last 8 years convincing the American public that our president isn't a socialist (because that is seen as a bad thing), and you seriously believe they'll elect a guy who admits it AND says all this crap? You know why the Republicans are mainly attacking Hillary? It's because they're afraid of her, and justifiably not threatened by Sanders because all it would take is a month of constant ads just replaying all the crap he's been saying to make him unelectable.
Cruz might. He's batshit crazy but I have a very hard time thinking that the wider US electorate will vote for Bernie's tax plan. Bernie will also get swiftboated into oblivion, it's hard to reconcile a conscientious objector with command in chief especially if his application gets out.
Outdoor Miner
Member
The noise Sanders campaign is making about super delegates is just that, noise. Can someone explain to me why supers would pick Sanders when he has millions less in popular vote, hundreds less in pledged delegates, and has contributed $1K to Dem down-ticket races compared to Clinton's $28M?
Like, do people not realize supers are party insiders with some of them even being the same people he is refusing to fund on downticket races? Do people realize how asinine his campaign's approach is atm with respect to courting supers?
Like, do people not realize supers are party insiders with some of them even being the same people he is refusing to fund on downticket races? Do people realize how asinine his campaign's approach is atm with respect to courting supers?
Because Bernie is able to fundraiser 40 million in a month from small donors and has more volunteers than all other campaigns combined. Although there is little point in enteraining the idea unless he wins NY/PA/NJ/CA etc
There is no data to backup your claims.
If Cruz can beat Bernie by the same token he can beat Hillary - I don't buy this at all.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
You are not doing the argument for free higher education any favors here.
Not a chance in my opinion, unless Bernie earns the pledged delegate lead from the voters. Since the Super Delegates have been around, the majority have NEVER went against the candidate that wins the most delegates from the voters. Just ask Hillary 2008 when some of her Super Delegates switched sides to go with candidate that won the most delegates from the voters, Obama.
To expect the Super Delegates to switch to Bernie if he doesn't win the delegate lead from the voters first, is not a rational expectation in my opinion.
Ogrekiller
Member
Blue states don't count because they will not vote republican anyway.
Speaking of which didn't Canada eschew their most liberal party for the establishment scandal riddled dynasty led party?
Dangansona
Member
Of course not. Every Bernie supporter who is against Super Delegates here and claiming they would switch is under the pretense if Bernie gets the popular vote. That's what the issue has always been about: including them in delegate counts and often not labeling them as Super Delegates making Bernie look like he had no chance from day one. The average person doesn't understand that those aren't cast votes and that they wouldn't switch if necessary at the end of the primaries.
Also the comments about only the northern states should vote is pretty dumb. Should states like mine, South Carolina, be weighted even less? Probably. We had an embarrassing amount of voters turnout considering how many delegates were allocated in the end.
legacyzero
Banned
The #BernieOrBust thing is real, and depending on who you are, a little hard to disagree with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLNfId2n74
His fundraising and volunteers aren't going to fix the problems SD's have with Sanders. Read up on Barney Frank and what it's like to work with Sanders, it's illuminating.
True, but do you really need charts explaining why these things wouldn't play well in a GE?
Sanders and Clinton have very different weaknesses as candidates. Cruz would not be able to hit Hillary on the "socialist" angle anywhere near as hard. Also, he wouldn't be able to blast her for saying anti-American and arguably idiotic things like "bread lines are good" and praising Castro (and who knows what else).
TheLaughingStock
Member
Man, if it comes down to Cruz vs. Sanders, I don't even... The thought of voting for Cruz makes me sick to my stomach, but I might just have to do some soul searching to see if I can find it within myself to pull out a Cruz vote in November
Don't worry Trump will finish off Lyin Ted or someone like Paul Ryan is going to parachute in.
Box of Kittens
Banned
This is an important point for sure. States aren't static. Vermont was once the most Republican state in the entire country. Until Bill Clinton won it in 1992, it had voted Republican in every presidential election since the founding of the party except the LBJ landslide of 1964. They even voted against FDR all four times. Now they're reliably blue.
More recently, Obama's winning coalition was put together with several states that had been reliably red before, such as Virginia. You need to be competing and building relationships in red states because over time they can turn purple/red.
Dangansona
Member
Yeah, it will be a breeze for Clinton. Going against the Republicans who cried wolf and throwing around the S word like they have for decades will be far more damaging than an ongoing FBI investigation and constant flip flops that will no doubt be run on TV commercial ads.
My comment was less about the spoiler issue, and more toward requests earlier on why one should support whomever the nominee is. The question was raiser earlier, so I put the consequences of this election in very plain terms. The substance of that answer still stands.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Those sorts of ads have been going on for decades. She's basically immune to them at this point.
... Ya, this isn't exactly a revelation. Hillary's been hit by this stuff for literally decades, Republicans haven't even begun work on Bernie. And no, I don't have charts backing that up, but you know as well I do, they aren't afraid of him.
I understand that it's real. I question the logic and motives of those who are willing to kill their own movement for a generation.
The #BernieOrBust thing is real, and depending on who you are, a little hard to disagree with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLNfId2n74
And so far, no one has given a good answer to this: how does turning over the judiciary to the GOP for 20+ years advance Bernie's long-term vision?
If you or anyone can come up with a sound answer, I'm all ears. But this question is dodged all the time around here, quite conspicuously. It speaks volumes.
The Lamonster
Member
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Every single attack on Bernie will be fresh and new and worth investigating (for the average voter)...where as every single attack on Hillary will be old news and the same crap we've been hearing for years that never goes anywhere.
Thats an interesting way to spin her baggage...
balladofwindfishes
Member
We know the public doesn't care about Benghazi or her emails anymore. They've been overused. It isn't spin. People are tired of these old arguments against Hillary, and if the GOP (or sadly, Bernie) keep pushing them, people will continue to just keep rolling their eyes.
You think she'd be winning by triple digit delegates against her opponent and be presumed to be the president of the United States by any political scientist with half a brain if any of those made up junk "scandals" meant anything?
People are tired of reading "this is a career ending find against Hillary" only for it to be absolutely nothing. You can't keep trying to do that for 20 years and have it fail every time and then expect it to suddenly start working.
Democrats are. Talk to some lifelong R voters. To the other side she is just as disgusting as Trump or Cruz is to us.
This election is going to be more about voting against the other side than for your preferred candidate IMHO. Its going to be a turnout war, and I think the R side is going to turn out hard to vote against Clinton.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
No one can give an answer to such a question because such an answer wouldn't make any damn sense and expose people for being ideological hypocrites.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Those voters wouldn't vote for Hillary, or Bernie or even Obama, so why bother even mentioning them?
She's got a ton of baggage, but here's the thing all the candidates remaining on both sides have luggage trains. Sanders is no different, but the main difference is that Sanders hasn't had much of any of it brought up in a consistent manner, there's been a couple of light slaps by Clinton and her surrogates but nothing sustained nor reaching into to some very obvious targets. Only really Kasich has had it easier. Funny enough they're the two candidates with the highest favorability at the moment. That's because their opposition has not really sought to define them.
Clinton's had the nomination pretty much sown up since Super Tuesday, she's not really had to go to the super negative well. She's pivoted slightly over the last week to hit him on his johnny come lately Democratic party credentials and tied that to his non-existent support for downballot candidates, but that's simply good politics are we're entering a string of closed primaries, and frankly it's a reaction to the Sanders campaign going relatively negative over the last couple of weeks. But even those skirmishes are very light, the Obama/Clinton contest was far far harsher on both sides and had far more sustained attacks.
The #BernieOrBust thing is real, and depending on who you are, a little hard to disagree with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLNfId2n74
Surefire way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
These people need to go back to HS History class and take note. The left loves to fracture over perceived, tiny differences in tactics and usher in terrible right / facist opponates.
History loves a rerun.
He wouldn't have to court me, but then again I'm not really for Hillary either. Although at this point I don't think he'd make a competent president.
Honestly, though, other than the Wall Street boogeyman they're not diametrically opposed. They recognize the same issues across the board.
- Status