April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Boo hoo. The shits slinging from both sides and I expect it to continue through new York at least.
https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/717797172154998784?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
She's finally fighting back against him, good work. He deserves some flack, because he's had hardly any thrown at him this entire race.
Battersea Power Station
Member
I assume you know a lot of these people are barely making ends meet and can't afford to take the day/hours off to vote, and even less to spend the time and read up on politics. It's not helpful to call them stupid.
nitekrawlwer
Member
You have it backwards. What they can't afford to do is let thier government go unattended. Their economic situation is directly related to the decisions their politicians will make.
I say that as someone who has missed bill payments because I missed hours at work and took the time to go vote.
balladofwindfishes
Member
He directly lied. Like, not even sort of hinted at it. He outright quoted Hillary as saying something she never said.
He's better than this.
Velcro Fly
Member
Why be accountable to the truth when people will eat up what you say anyway?
I see more untrue shit spread about Hillary Clinton on my facebook feed than any other candidate. Blatantly untrue stuff that has nothing to do with Bernie either.
Yeah, in fact Hillary said she'd take Bernie before Cruz or Trump any day
Battersea Power Station
Member
Ok, you missed a bill payment. It's great that you're committed to participating in government. I think everyone should be. What about the people who are supporting kids and risk losing their jobs if they take a day off? I agree with your sentiment about the imperative to vote. I disagree with calling people stupid.
Prelude to New York.
Hillary Clinton Smashes Bernie Sanders In New York Fundraising
She's raised $20.5m vs Bernies $1.5m and Cruz's $1.1m.
Hillary Clinton Smashes Bernie Sanders In New York Fundraising
She's raised $20.5m vs Bernies $1.5m and Cruz's $1.1m.
Well duh, she has all those Wall St. people to give her money.
nitekrawlwer
Member
I would give them a list of relevant social services, food banks, connect them with a few of the churches Im aware of that help people in need through subsidized child care and in some cases even paying bills for them. Also for paying bills there are even services from utility companies that can help that I can direct them to.
If that doesn't quite cover it I can call one of a few friends involved in social work that know of far more than me. It gets even easier if they are a minority or LGTBQ+. I also even know some people in charge of local shelters if none of that seems to work. I'm also friends with the director of the Texas Civil Rights Project in case it was an issue with their employer being a dick and threatening their job if they took the time to vote.
I would stress how important voting is and give them a modified speech of Francis Underwoods speech about money vs power replacing power with rights and stress how money can be made up but if your rights are taken away that money won't do you any good anyways.
You can disagree till the cows come home. Frankly I don't care how you feel about it. It certainly won't remove it from my vocabulary.
You bet, I hope she spends it like crazy there to really hammer home a solid win.
Those sachs of money!
legacyzero
Banned
https://youtu.be/gTopAYE3IFw?t=24s
The Super Delegates are coming.....
http://www.wpr.org/bernie-sanders-gets-first-wisconsin-superdelegate
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/
FLASH BACK TO 2008:
You underestimate the revolution, my friend.
https://youtu.be/gTopAYE3IFw?t=24s
The Super Delegates are coming.....
http://www.wpr.org/bernie-sanders-gets-first-wisconsin-superdelegate
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/
FLASH BACK TO 2008:
Obama lead the race in delegates, it was way tighter than this race. FYI, she still ended up with 200~ Super delegates in 08, that's all she'll need this time around to get the nom. (She'll get 600+ in the end).
Battersea Power Station
Member
Why? That would give her a huge advantage (even moreso than she has now) in delegates and potentially end the race right there. If we want Bernie to have a fighting chance, he's gotta pull out an upset in NY.
Because I want Hillary to win??? He isn't going to pull an upset. He's going to lose NY, by how much we wait and see.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Wait, why are you rooting for Hillary?
And, yeah, there's no way he can win, but an upset might include keeping the race way tighter than the polls.
eBay Huckster
Member
maybe miles likes her policies better
maybe miles doesn't wanna root for jeb bush in a vermonter skin suit
maybe miles doesn't wanna root for jeb bush in a vermonter skin suit
legacyzero
Banned
Wisconsin and Michigan: "LOL"
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Why are you rooting for Bernie? (I don't actually care). She is the only logical candidate for America.
It needs to be more than tight, he needs to win by 25 points to get on track to beating her.
Bad polling in Michigan, it's clearly an anomoly. Wisconsin had Bernie ahead in 50% of the polls. He's not been ahead in any NY polls.
Shall I reel off all the polls that have been accurate?
Battersea Power Station
Member
Why do you say she's the only logical candidate? That surprises me. And I'd be curious to hear which of her policies you prefer to Sanders'. To me, it seems like a clear choice for Sanders (and I'd be glad to describe why if you change your mind and decide you do care
) but I'm always open to hearing a different point of view.Why do you say she's the only logical candidate? That surprises me. And I'd be curious to hear which of her policies you prefer to Sanders'. To me, it seems like a clear choice for Sanders (and I'd be glad to describe why if you change your mind and decide you do care
Well of course it's a clear choice to you, just like it's a clear choice for me that Hillary should be the nom. I'm certainly not going to pretend my opinion is king though and convince others to vote for her. I've already done my research, he does not appeal to me as much as Hillary does.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Why do you say she's the only logical candidate? That surprises me. And I'd be curious to hear which of her policies you prefer to Sanders'. To me, it seems like a clear choice for Sanders (and I'd be glad to describe why if you change your mind and decide you do care
For me at least, I agree with Bernie on nearly everything, but it comes down the details where I don't care for him.
- He's awful at articulating his positions. As president, he's the guy who stands in front of American and explains stuff. He's pretty bad at this, and he constantly needs to write clarifications on stuff he says, or goes into interviews unprepared for certain questions. While Hillary lists out detailed plans, Bernie fumbles on specifics. I don't find him to be "presidential" while Hillary gives off an air of professionalism and seriousness. He can sometimes come across as naive, or more like an old man ranting than a president. Some of his "plans" read like something a 9th grader would write for a Political Science homework assignment.
- He's not a Democrat and has no concern for down ticket races. A revolution doesn't happen unless down ticket gains are made, and he's made exactly 0 effort to raise funds or help down ticket races in any way. Hillary has raised millions for them, and is even now, campaigning for them. He's also caused great division in the party, for seemingly no benefit. He isn't going to win, and now he's got a huge group of kids who parrot Tea Party talking points and GOP propaganda and it's become a huge mess. You know how Bernie supporters always complain Hillary supporters talk down to them? Well try being a life long liberal who agrees with all of the points Bernie is trying to make, and still being called a shill. Being called a Republican. A fraud. Not progressive enough. It hurts. It's not cool. And it's soured me completely on him. His worst enemies is his fan club, his fan club that will drop him in a second. They aren't loyal. They don't care about his policies. They like being trendy, being different. They hop on the bandwagon because it's cool to like Bernie. He has the same cult following him as Ron Paul did, and I know this because I've outright seen some of them admit they only vote for Bernie because he's like Ron Paul. Which makes no sense because he's nothing like Ron Paul, but they say it anyway. I hate to be so blunt, but he's a fad to some people. That's not to say all of his supporters, but I think we all know what sorts I'm talking about, let's not kid ourselves. Sometimes I wonder if I'm reading Red State or a liberal blog. Sometimes it's hard to tell these days and that's incredibly sad.
- He pushes blind optimism when raising money, and it comes across, to me at least, as feeling a little slimy. He doesn't really lay down exactly what the odds are, or the math involved, instead, pushing the notion that states, not delegates, matter, and that there's such a thing as momentum, which it's pretty clear there isn't this primary. I don't think he's necessarily doing it to be dishonest, but when his core demographic are people who are likely giving him most of their discretionary income, it feels bad that the entire situation and the dire odds haven't been explained to them.
- One of their key differences, foreign policy, is not something I really care much about. I know I probably should, but I don't.
- I'm not convinced he can beat the GOP in the general election. His tax plan is disastrous. He crumbles at even the slightest hint of someone pushing him. I'm not convinced his supporters are in it for his policies, but rather just because he's different. Those aren't reliable voters at all. And there's too much at stake. We have a very real chance of moving the country forward via a stacked court, and I'd be crushed if that was wasted chasing unobtainable dream candidates. If that means I have to settle for a less than desirable candidate, so be it. Another generation of a Reagan style court would put an end to any dreams of a progressive agenda for 20 years or more. Ginsburg likely isn't going to make it to the end of 8 years, and I'd hate for the GOP to not only replace Scalia with another Scalia, but replace Ruth with another Scalia. That's a worst case scenario I'm not sure Bernie "all of nothing" supporters really grasp.
- I'm bias because she was my senator and I liked when she was my senator.
- I also want to reward a life long commitment to following her dreams of being the first woman president. I admire she's come so close to achieving the goal, after working like crazy her entire life. Taking abuse for all sides of the isle, and just generally having a ton of pressure on her. But through all that, her dream of being president has prevailed, and I like that. It's pretty clear she's had this as her life goal, and ambition and drive towards a goal is something I like in people. It sounds corny, but it's just something I like about her.
- I absolutely adore Obama, so her being more of him is a good thing to me. Obama is the best dude ever, and I wish he had a third term. He'll always be my president.
TyphoonStruggle
Member
what the heck is going on hillary?
https://twitter.com/stanbushtv/status/718229050028879872
#HillarySoQualified was hijacked
https://twitter.com/GRForSanders/status/717920723931676672
#PresidentOfRenamingThings
https://twitter.com/stanbushtv/status/718229050028879872
#HillarySoQualified was hijacked
https://twitter.com/GRForSanders/status/717920723931676672
#PresidentOfRenamingThings
Battersea Power Station
Member
Hmm... interesting.
I'm completely the opposite when it comes to the articulating. I'm always certain about what Sanders is saying, and I can follow it clearly -- and I assume his colleagues can, too -- while Clinton tends to speak in clichés that lose meaning. The whole "reset button" with Russia is an example of that, and how her well-intentioned words don't add up to clear policy.
But perhaps the most important issue to me is Sanders' willingness to listen to groups like BLM and form the most comprehensive social justice platform out of all the candidates. The current status of American blacks is indefensible, and I think those racial issues are going to become more and more important in the very near future, as the number of people willing to speak up reaches critical mass. It will take a leader willing to acknowledge the outrage to do something about it, and I think Sanders is the one to do that.
I kinda feel the same way (as you) about her being the first female President. It'd be a nice follow-up to electing Obama (and I have a young daughter, so it'd be great for her to see an accomplished woman of high rank that earned it), but that's kind of a selfish desire for me, so it's not going to overshadow the other issues
I hope you realize: Bernie would need polling failures similar to the Michigan failure in nearly all of the remaining contests in order to have a shot of coming close to the delegate totals he needs.
But please, proceed with your laughter.
#FeelTheMath
Well, it's not like the MyCandidateOrBust folks ever have a counter argument to the court point. A GOP win effectively kills the progressive vision for a generation. Anything progressive passed and signed into law would be subject to being struck-down by judicial challenges.
Bernie knows this, which is why he'll still endorse in the end. He knows that Citizens gets killed at the hands of Hillary's & Obama's judicial appointees, and that his agenda remains alive to fight another day. A Bernie 2.0 elected in the 2020s wouldn't have a court in place ready to kill anything significant that he/she signs into law.
That's how our system works.
The MyGuyOrBustFolks won't even acknowledge this or counter it. Because they know it's true.
Cue the crickets.
Well, it's not like the MyCandidateOrBust folks ever have a counter argument to the court point. A GOP win effectively kills the progressive vision for a generation. Anything progressive passed and signed into law would be subject to being struck-down by judicial challenges.
Bernie knows this, which is why he'll still endorse in the end. He knows that Citizens gets killed at the hands of Hillary's & Obama's judicial appointees, and that his agenda remains alive to fight another day. A Bernie 2.0 elected in the 2020s wouldn't have a court in place ready to kill anything significant that he/she signs into law.
That's how our system works.
The MyGuyOrBustFolks won't even acknowledge this or counter it. Because they know it's true.
Cue the crickets.
Oh just lately I've seen "We'll survive another Republican president".
Elfforkusu
Member
I mean, how do you characterize 2008? Because yes, lots of people still stayed home. But I'm specifically talking about the midterms since, where people on the left point the finger not at their party but at voters.
wrt the bolded, I'm not convinced contemporary Democrats actually stand for any of those things. Lip service only!
If we're talking money, I agree. You get out what you put in.
If we're talking voting, calling/writing congressmen/women, etc, I can't say I've had much luck!
One day I hope to own enough millions of dollars to participate in the American democracy.
nitekrawlwer
Member
2008 was not the highest turnout this past century if this data from Wikipedia is accurate. Not even the past 56 years. Unless you go by number of voters soley but as the country rises in population of course those numbers will look higher than the past.
If you dont believe that's what democrats have been fighting for I don't know what to tell you. That's completely ignoring Obama's presidency for one. I'm certainly not going to convince you otherwise.
"Clear but unspecific" is probably the domain of Bernie, sure. It's easy to follow overarching statements, but when boiled down to details, Bernie's recently demonstrated he lacks knowledge on a subject that he's been harping on for decades. I thought it was very disingenuous of him to try and sell the story of "one million voters will be standing outside Mitch McConnell's window" when that wasn't realistic nor was it specific about how the political revolution is supposed to happen. If important details are 'cliches', aren't you just looking for an orator rather than a leader?Hmm... interesting.
I'm completely the opposite when it comes to the articulating. I'm always certain about what Sanders is saying, and I can follow it clearly -- and I assume his colleagues can, too -- while Clinton tends to speak in clichés that lose meaning. The whole "reset button" with Russia is an example of that, and how her well-intentioned words don't add up to clear policy.
But perhaps the most important issue to me is Sanders' willingness to listen to groups like BLM and form the most comprehensive social justice platform out of all the candidates. The current status of American blacks is indefensible, and I think those racial issues are going to become more and more important in the very near future, as the number of people willing to speak up reaches critical mass. It will take a leader willing to acknowledge the outrage to do something about it, and I think Sanders is the one to do that.
I kinda feel the same way (as you) about her being the first female President. It'd be a nice follow-up to electing Obama (and I have a young daughter, so it'd be great for her to see an accomplished woman of high rank that earned it), but that's kind of a selfish desire for me, so it's not going to overshadow the other issues
Bernie's supposed willingness to listen to specific groups was born out of political necessity to get votes. I don't blame him for that. But the actual character of this man is that he neglected the black community in his home state when they didn't make up as much of the population of Vermont, and he was so caught up in himself that when he was protested at Netroots, before any of this turnaround, Bernie got up and left the event rather than to listen to what the protestors had to say (even Martin O'Malley remained rather than leaving!). The social justice platform didn't come out of his own active pursuing of the issues, it came because he is chasing votes. Who is to say he isn't going to put AA on the backburner just like every other politician? Especially given his history in his state?
That's why it's a bit weird when people proclaim Bernie is going to be the leader that will do something about racial issues, when the focus of his political career has been Wall Street and socialism. Bernie's laser focus on tying everything to Wall Street makes it quite apparent what his first priority is. If anything, I expect him to gun for Wall Street to the detriment of other vital issues.
I definitely think you should plot out your path tho, if you have hope and faith like you say you do, you shouldn't be worried about it being torn to pieces and losing faith
I need more data before I can make a realistic prediction on how the rest of the race will turn out.
Bernie's best chance of winning the nomination in my opinion will require him to get a simple majority of the pledged delegates and convince uncommitted superdelegates to pledge their support for him at the national convention.
We'll see. Let's wait for New York.
He isn't going to get the majority of pledged delegates though, it flies in the face of common sense and logic.
Bernie does well in caucuses, that's where he gets his big wins. They're running out rapidly, and of the 5 left Hillary is strong in three (I've highlighted who is most likely to win each remaining state) She won Northern Marianas, she's a total show in for Puerto Rico. Guam is next door to NM and if all those have gone her way it's unlikely Virgin Islands will be any different.
North Dakota and Wyoming are shoes ins for Bernie, Wyoming being his last huge win, 70/30, North Dakota being closer 40/60~. Problem is neither of those states have a lot of delegates. Combined they have 32 delegates. Compare that to Guam, VI and Puerto Rico's combined 74 delegates...
Moving onto Open primaries of which only Wisconsin should give Bernie fans any hope. Exclude all the southern states for Hillary, and you're left with a close battle in the NE (ish) states, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri. Neither Hillary or Bernie have won states in this area above around 14%. Looking at the map, if you had to give Indiana to one of them, it'd be Hillary. But whoever wins, it's not going to be by much at all. There will be no double digit win here. Making it a stalemate. Montana will go to Bernie, but it'll not be by the huge wins his mid west caucuses have got him. I think the absolute highest he can go here is 20 points, but even then it looks unrealistic. I guess this is a bit of a dark horse, being the first mid west state in this area to be a primary and not a caucus.
Lastly, and most importantly, the closed primaries. In terms of the NE, all we have to go on is the fact Hillary is polling exceptionally well with huge wins expected in Maryland. She dominated the south so that will have a ripple effect up to West Virginia. She won Massachusetts (barely) despite being neighbours to Vermont and New Hampshire, and you can't use those as any sort of evidence for obvious reasons, home ground advantage for Bernie.
You're right focusing on New York, when she wins that, it pretty much locks in the NE. Everything those remaining states touch, Hillary has victory.
New Mexico sandwiched between Texas and Arizona, should go to Hillary. California is in her favour, borders Arizona and Nevada, but also Oregon which Bernie should get. Again I don't think anyone should expect double digit wins for either here. South Dakota was a bit of an anomoly in 08 (Hillary won it) but even if you give it to Bernie it's a measly 20 delegates, it shouldn't be a blow out either way.
Going back to the NE area, it's ridiculous for Bernie fans to assume he will start having 20/30 point wins in this area when you have all this data laid out in front of you. His huge wins have been caucuses, in the mid west, and his home state. Her big wins have been southern states, and primaries. She had the advantage going forward.
You should stop using the flimsy excuse "Wait for New York" and plot out where and how you think he can get the numbers (http://demrace.com/) Then let us all see.
Box of Kittens
Banned
This right here is so huge. The president is limited in what they can do without Congress, and there's also a lot of policy that gets made on the state level (honestly, one can argue a state legislative race often has more direct impact on one's life than a presidential race). Bernie has shown so little interest in helping allies get elected in downballot races, while Hillary has a long history of being dedicated to doing just that. It really shows in things like an estimated 11.5% of Bernie's voters not even bothering to cast a vote in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race on Tuesday.
I'm sorry, did she not say he's not really a democrat just a few days ago?
eBay Huckster
Member
quick note: PR and ND are both open primaries, VI is a closed caucus, and I'd characterize WV as leaning Sanders simply because of the "hateboner for Obama" factor (which also manifested itself in Oklahoma)
ShironRedshift
Member
Nice dodge, but you're better than that--click the link and try again and see that that has nothing to do with anything and isn't what Sanders is lying about. Sanders said Clinton called him "not qualified" to be President. She did not, and went out of her way to say that he broad attention to a lot of imortant issues. It's a flat-out lie, which he then followed up by actually saying himself that he feels that Clinton is unqualified to be President. Sanders is being entirely dishonest and usually that as an opportunity to throw cheap-shots at his opponent that despite his claims, she never threw his way herself. Sanders fucked up and is being dishonest here, and that's on no one but him.
He's not. He says he's not.
AND that has nothing to do with the post you were replying to.
Unknown Soldier
Member
She's factually correct there until 2015. Bernie was an Independent Congressman and Senator until he formally joined the party so he could run for President as a Democrat.
However he caucused with the Democrats during his political career and was a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991, serving as it's first chairman.
So, he is really a Democrat? In spirit, yes, he was a founder and one of the leading members of the largest progressive caucus in the House. In name, yes but only as of 2015.
I'll let you decide for yourself just how much a Democrat he is compared to Hillary, considering he voted against the War in Iraq she voted for, he opposed the trade bill with Panama which gave rise to it's tax haven status she voted for, he opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, and TPP which Hillary all supported until she suddenly reversed course on TPP when she realized she was being outflanked on the left on that issue.
Her "opposition" to TPP is pretty fake too considering she knows that Obama plans to have it passed before the next President takes office. She hasn't even pretended she would try to prevent it's passage before her putative Presidency.
eBay Huckster
Member
notwithstanding the general hateboner for trade deals and the continued oversimplification of persistent war-boner to the 2002 AUMF, please proceed in pretending she was for CAFTA
What do any of those things have to do with being a Democrat? That's just a Hillary hit list dressed up to answer a question it doesn't at all address.
Unknown Soldier
Member
She also said she didn't know if he was qualified to be President or not.
Both mean in political speak that she thinks he isn't a Dem and he isn't qualified. Why are all the supposedly born with centuries of political experience Hillary supporters who talk down to every Bernie supporter as a semi-evolved simian with inferior intelligence to them suddenly pretending otherwise?
As for the trade deals, everyone who posts on GAF has an offshore tax haven or something judging from how all the Hillary supporters seem to embrace the "free trade agreements" which are primarily intended to accelerate the growth of wealth inequality to concentrate power in a few elites while systematically driving everyone else to economic ruin and mass starvation. I mean, are you really going to defend the trade deals after the leak of the Panama Papers? After the release of the full text of TPP? Are you all CEOs of multinational corporations or something?
She most certainly did NOT say "I don't know if he is qualified". Watch the video for yourself:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/61718...alled-bernie-sanders-unqualified-fact-refused
And your choice of words is interesting, since I am the CEO of a multinational startup. But I made less than 12k last year so I don't fit your wealth inequality model. I have mixed feelings about trade agreements, but not all of them are the devil and not all of the things in the are evil. I can separate the good from the bad policy when looking at individual trade agreements. Can you? Or is that too nuanced for you?
Ogrekiller
Member
Registered to run as an independent in 2018. DINO
- Status