Support NeoGAF

[Prodigal Son]

You don't think a Fox News hosted debate would have a line of questioning slanted so that both candidates can air their attacks on Hillary Clinton, with Trump giving faux-sympathy to Sander supporters?

That's how things have gone for the past few months. Both Trump and Fox News have been pretending to be sympathetic to Sanders and his campaign. This plays right into that.

A) Like how they ruthlessly attacked Clinton during the Fox town hall? These two candidates disagree on so many issues and it's mind-blowingly perplexing that people think HRC hate will be a major topic, let alone the primary subject matter for two hours.

B) I have no doubt in my mind there is an agenda to make Bernie look better than Clinton here. You're right about Fox and the republican establishment elites preferring a run against him than a run against Clinton. That doesn't mean Clinton will be a primary focus though. Like with the last town hall, they'd want to make him look good. That doesn't mean making Clinton look bad. It probably won't involve making Clinton look bad. Don't you think that agenda would be a bit too obvious?

C) The venue has not at all been decided yet. No one knows with certainty that it'll be on Fox news. TYT just offered 1 million to have them as the host but I doubt the Sanders camp itself is too thrilled by that idea.

 

[Davide]

Also this Hillary - Bernie debate shit is stupid. They've debated 8 times already. If she doesn't want to debate him again then tough shit.

"You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere." - Hillary Clinton

So many weak excuses made for Hillary here.

 

[darkside31337]

"You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere." - Hillary Clinton

So many weak excuses made for Hillary here.

Yes when theres an actual race going on debates should be had. The race is over. More people voted for Hillary. A lot more.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

A) Like how they ruthlessly attacked Clinton during the Fox town hall? These two candidates disagree on so many issues and it's mind-blowingly perplexing that people think HRC hate will be a major topic, let alone the primary subject matter for two hours.

If you get off the hate of the DNC, hate of Hillary Clinton, and hate of the political establishment, Trump and Sanders have almost nothing in common. Since the goal of Trump and Fox News is to try to draw Sanders voters to Trump, why would anything else be discussed?

B) I have no doubt in my mind there is an agenda to make Bernie look better than Clinton here. You're right about Fox and the republican establishment elites preferring a run against him than a run against Clinton. That doesn't mean Clinton will be a primary focus though. Like with the last town hall, they'd want to make him look good. That doesn't mean making Clinton look bad. It probably won't involve making Clinton look bad. Don't you think that agenda would be a bit too obvious?

There is no agenda too obvious for Fox News. None. They also have no interest in making Bernie look good, excepting in comparison to how bad Clinton looks. They don't want to build Bernie up, they just want to tear the Democratic nominee down.

 

[Risette]

I must have missed the last nine primaries of the race as well as the democratic convention...

The last nine primaries don't matter, because Bernie isn't going to win the ones that matter. Clinton will reach the delegate threshold on next Tuesday, so this line of argument is really puzzling.

It's over. Really over.

 

[border]

Making promises you cannot / will not keep is not smart politics. Especially at this stage and this day and age.

"Making promises I can't keep" is practically the Sanders campaign slogan, isn't it?

 

[johnsmith]

Can you blame her for not wanting to debate? She's probably sick of his old man sausage fingers being waved in her face.

 

[Davide]

Yes when theres an actual race going on debates should be had. The race is over. More people voted for Hillary. A lot more.

The race is not over. Bernie Sanders agreed to debate her in New Hampshire on the terms that they would hold four additional debates. She hasn't come through on her promise.

 

[fifasnipe2224]

And attitudes like this is why liberals keep losing winnable fights.

I would rather have my candidate lose being honest then win by lying.
We could benefit from more open and honest politicians and we should show that by supporting them with our votes.

In this case it is. A broken promise over a scheduled debate will be largely forgotten, but video footage of a disastrous debate (one that smells like a trap to begin with) would get recirculated until November.

Calculating both scenarios, cancelling the debate is the lesser risk.

Lol just like releasing the Wall-street transcripts I bet. Right?
She cannot keep her word before running for office, while running for office, nor will she while in office.
She should keep her word. Especially to the Democratic voters who were promised another debate before California.

"Making promises I can't keep" is practically the Sanders campaign slogan, isn't it?

Ok... explain please.

 

[Prodigal Son]

If you get off the hate of the DNC, hate of Hillary Clinton, and hate of the political establishment, Trump and Sanders have almost nothing in common. Since the goal of Trump and Fox News is to try to draw Sanders voters to Trump, why would anything else be discussed?



There is no agenda too obvious for Fox News. None. They also have no interest in making Bernie look good, excepting in comparison to how bad Clinton looks. They don't want to build Bernie up, they just want to tear the Democratic nominee down.

GAF was saying exactly these same talking points before the last town Hall with Fox.

This debate probably won't even happen, but if/when it does, amidsts all the satisfaction of watching the actual debate will be the amusement of Hillary coming up in 1-2 questions and never being mentioned again for the night.

 

[Suikoguy]

Lol just like releasing the Wall-street transcripts I bet. Right?
She cannot keep her word before running for office, while running for office, nor will she while in office.
She should keep her word. Especially to the Democratic voters who were promised another debate before California.



Ok... explain please.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. Where are the other Sanders tax returns?
He said soon weeks ago.
He only has a bit over a week left before it won't even matter at all (not that it matters that much now)

Considering how SOP releasing them is, you do have to wonder why he won't release them.
Along with his anti-trade bullshit, he does have that in common with Trump though. Both won't release their taxes, hehe.

 

[border]

Ok... explain please.

His platform is centered on issues that would be near impossible to accomplish even without a Republican obstructionist Congress. Tuition-free college, free health care, breaking up banks.

 

[thepotatoman]

Strategically, I'm on the fense if this is a good idea for progressives. It'd be a huge platform for progressives that agree with bernie on policy, and even if it hurts Hillary, hopefully she has more than enough slack against trump to get past it. It might even be a good opportunity to turn those weird people that have Trump as their second pick after Bernie towards Hillary/not voting.

But personally, I can't help but be mega hyped to see this.

 

[Joey Fox]

I don't see why it's bad for the Democrats to have a contingency plan in case Hillary really did violate the Federal Records Act. But there's a lot I don't understand about her candidacy's existence.

 

[Godslay]

Yes when theres an actual race going on debates should be had. The race is over. More people voted for Hillary. A lot more.

Much like they are saying that the race is dead for Bernie, it's easy to forget that when Clinton said that she was in the same position as Bernie is now.

No one had clinched the Superdelegates. Obama had what amounted to an insurmountable lead. She said she was staying in the race because Bill didn't clinch until he won California, and with what happened to Bobby Kennedy anything could happen. Which she got a ton of heat over for even mentioning an assassination as a valid reason to stay in the race.

She said that quote on or around May 23 2008.

 

[Azzanadra]

Oh yeah, that reminds me. Where are the other Sanders tax returns?
He said soon weeks ago.
He only has a bit over a week left before it won't even matter at all (not that it matters that much now)

Aren't the transcripts especially shady though? take Hillary out of the equation and see how this sounds: "Presidential candidate gives private speech to some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country."

What did she tell those fat cats that us common folk are apparently not enlightened enough to know?

 

[Gutek]

Looks like Bernie just destroyed Clinton's lead in CA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/u...fornia-primary.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

[Suikoguy]

Much like they are saying that the race is dead for Bernie, it's easy to forget that when Clinton said that she was in the same position as Bernie is now.

No one had clinched the Superdelegates. Obama had what amounted to an insurmountable lead. She said she was staying in the race because Bill didn't clinch until he won California, and with what happened to Bobby Kennedy anything could happen. Which she got a ton of heat over for even mentioning an assassination as a valid reason to stay in the race.

She said that quote on or around May 23 2008.

You really don't remember how much of a lead Obama had compared to how much of a Lead Hillary has now do you?

It would behove you to at least get your facts straight.

Aren't the transcripts especially shady though? take Hillary out of the equation and see how this sounds: "Presidential candidate gives private speech to some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country."

What did she tell those fat cats that us common folk are apparently not enlightened enough to know?

You are deflecting again...

 

[Davide]

Looks like Bernie just destroyed Clinton's lead in CA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/u...fornia-primary.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

He's going to need much more than a narrow win for it to matter. Still, I do expect Clinton's numbers to go down over the next couple weeks.

 

[Gutek]

He's going to need much more than a narrow win for it to matter. Still, I do expect Clinton's numbers to go down over the next couple weeks.

It's important in the overall narrative though. Right now, Trump's and Bernie's numbers are going up. Clinton is the only one going down. Clinton is looking like a weaker and weaker candidate by the day.

 

[Azzanadra]

You are deflecting again...

True, he should release them. Now what say you about the transcripts of a speech only the wealthiest deserve to hear?

 

[Suikoguy]

True, he should release them. Now what say you about the transcripts of a speech only the wealthiest deserves to hear?

Not sure what Taxes and Speeches have in common.
Clinton released her Taxes.

Why is Hillary being held to a different standard?

 

[jack_package_200]

Looks like Bernie just destroyed Clinton's lead in CA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/u...fornia-primary.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

538 has her chances of winning at 97%. Unless you think they are establishment shills, they have been pretty reliable. She will win.

 

[Makai]

oh no. trump was just kidding

 

[Gutek]

538 has her chances of winning at 97%. Unless you think they are establishment shills, they have been pretty reliable. She will win.

We'll see about that.

Edit: It's a toss up at this point, at least in my opinion.

 

[Davide]

It's important in the overall narrative though. Right now, Trump's and Bernie's numbers are going up. Clinton is the only one going down. Clinton is looking like a weaker and weaker candidate by the day.

I think his chances in California could certainly go up with a debate against Trump too.

 

[border]

Looks like Bernie just destroyed Clinton's lead in CA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/u...fornia-primary.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

A more recent poll shows her up by 18 points in California:

http://abc7.com/politics/poll-clinton-poised-to-defeat-sanders-in-california-primary/1351808/

I am curious why there seems to be such radically different numbers.....some showing a double digit win, others showing a very narrow margin of victory.

 

[jack_package_200]

We'll see about that.

Anything is possible with Bernie math.

 

[Azzanadra]

Not sure what Taxes and Speeches have in common.
Clinton released her Taxes.

Why is Hillary being held to a different standard?

I am asking you about the speeches..... Taxes is one thing, but this lack of transparency is disturbing. Like I said before, what did she tell those guys that the common folk are not allowed to know?

 

[Suikoguy]

538 has her chances of winning at 97%. Unless you think they are establishment shills, they have been pretty reliable. She will win.

Benchmark puts her expected win at +12. They are arguably the most accurate forecaster this election.

Sanders needs around +40 depending on how badly he loses NJ.

 

[Suikoguy]

I am asking you about the speeches..... Taxes is one thing, but this lack of transparency is disturbing. Like I said before, what did she tell those guys that the common folk are not allowed to know?

That's odd, Taxes are the one standard we hold candidates too for decades now. Why are Sanders and Trump above that?

If she releases her speeches, what other bullshit will people want?

 

[Cipherr]

The race is not over. Bernie Sanders agreed to debate her in New Hampshire on the terms that they would hold four additional debates. She hasn't come through on her promise.

Race is over, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. No more free TV time for Bernie and no more debates.

I don't see why it's bad for the Democrats to have a contingency plan in case Hillary really did violate the Federal Records Act. But there's a lot I don't understand about her candidacy's existence.

Its a waste of time and attention, but I dont mind it anymore. The stuff out of Bernies camp and Trumps nonsense hasn't moved things away from the Dems in a way that will stick at all, so let him hang around until he is pushed out of the door. No real harm done.

It's important in the overall narrative though. Right now, Trump's and Bernie's numbers are going up. Clinton is the only one going down. Clinton is looking like a weaker and weaker candidate by the day.

You don't understand... There is no narrative after CA except Trump vs Hillary. This expectation you have of the narrative of how "close" it was does not exist in the real world during election years. Once she crosses the threshold with SD's the only thing all forms of media will talk about is Trump and Hillary.

Not Bernie....

Not how close...

No narrative, no nothing. Just Trump, Hillary, and guesses about their VP picks. Ask yourself how quickly after Trump was left standing solo that the media dropped discussions of Cruz and the rest if you don't believe me.

I am asking you about the speeches..... Taxes is one thing, but this lack of transparency is disturbing. Like I said before, what did she tell those guys that the common folk are not allowed to know?

If we are ignoring precedent, and making up demands out of thin air with no real substance behind them, and trying to weakly justify it with fear-mongering tier "What are you hiding!"

Then I want Bernies teenage diary and an interview with all of his ex-girlfriends prior to his marriage. And Ill take his medical records for age 21-today as well. If the man wants to be leader of the nation, I have decided that we need this info. Precedent for such a request? Naaaaah, I don't need that if he has nothing to hide.

 

[Risette]

We'll see about that.

Edit: It's a toss up at this point, at least in my opinion.

538 collects data from all reliable polls, not just one like that article.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

 

[Hazmat]

It's important in the overall narrative though. Right now, Trump's and Bernie's numbers are going up. Clinton is the only one going down. Clinton is looking like a weaker and weaker candidate by the day.

Clinton overtook Trump in the Rasmussen poll (the only pollster that showed him winning) today. What was this about her numbers going down?

 

[darkside31337]

Looks like Bernie just destroyed Clinton's lead in CA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/u...fornia-primary.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Great? Even if he did somehow win CA by 2 points... its over. She'll have egg on her face and Bernie will keep the charade going into the convention which hes going to do regardless of the outcome of the upcoming primaries.

Trump had it right when he said the folk who gets the most votes should be the nominee. Its amazing how folks railing against a "rigged" election system don't even want to acknowledge the notion that the candidate who actually has more votes should be the nominee. Do they call it a revolution because they can't win an actual democratic election?

 

[Gutek]

A more recent poll shows her up by 18 points in California:

http://abc7.com/politics/poll-clinton-poised-to-defeat-sanders-in-california-primary/1351808/

I am curious why there seems to be such radically different numbers.....some showing a double digit win, others showing a very narrow margin of victory.

This is less recent. The one in the NYT is from Wednesday aka yesterday.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

A more recent poll shows her up by 18 points in California:

http://abc7.com/politics/poll-clinton-poised-to-defeat-sanders-in-california-primary/1351808/

I am curious why there seems to be such radically different numbers.....some showing a double digit win, others showing a very narrow margin of victory.

most of these polls are not random samples of the voting population... instead, they create demographic profiles that they think are reflective of who will be voting and then poll those groups. changing the ratio of one group to another (whites vs blacks, college vs high school educated, etc.) can dramatically influence the outcome of the poll. different pollsters will use different demographic profiles when doing their sample. this is also how there have been isntances where pollsters have consistently gotten the "wrong" results. in michigan their demographic models were very outdated -- they assumed more of group X would out than it did. When group Y showed up, a group that favored Sanders, he managed to eke out a win.

e: this isn't the only reason, of course

 

[D.Lo]

Lol just like releasing the Wall-street transcripts I bet. Right?
She cannot keep her word before running for office, while running for office, nor will she while in office.
She should keep her word. Especially to the Democratic voters who were promised another debate before California

Yep exactly.

The optics of this are so bad for her.

So many defences here are 'fuck promises it doesn't matter in this case anymore' but it does matter, a broken promise is a broken promise, and the electorate already thinks she's very untrustworthy.

I understand the argument that keeping this promise is too high risk for her. But that an be attacked from the other side, it means she made bad judgements when making the promise. Just like saying she would release the transcripts - she did it as a delaying tactic, without a plan of what to do when her randomly generated demands were actually met. Now there are no other candidates running for president who have made paid speeches to Wall St firms, and she is caught having made another bad call in agreeing to release them.

 

[Stinkles]

I must have missed the last nine primaries of the race as well as the democratic convention...

And a bunch of math classes.

 

[davepoobond]

This is less recent. The one in the NYT is from Wednesday aka yesterday.

wow she lost 18 points in one day

 

[Godslay]

You really don't remember how much of a lead Obama had compared to how much of a Lead Hillary has now do you?

It would behove you to at least get your facts straight.

In May of 08, that lead was effectively insurmountable.

Pressure had started to mount for her to bail out.

It wasn't the gap between Clinton and Sanders, but that goose was cooked.

That's why we got the Bobby Kennedy assassination reasoning.

Besides, we are playing a different game here. Obama wasn't facing the same issues Hillary is now.

Here's the total delegate count if you want to try to count them up through May and try to make a different narrative then what happened.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html

 

[Davide]

And a bunch of math classes.

Bernie needs about 70% of the remaining delegates to win. Unlikely, yes, but possible and that's why Bernie's fighting maybe harder than ever for that chance.

I'm not the one who's bad at math.

 

[jetsetrez]

And a bunch of math classes.

lmao

 

[brianmcdoogle]

We'll see about that.

Edit: It's a toss up at this point, at least in my opinion.

My money where your mouth is. I'll donate a hundred bucks to the Sanders campaign if he wins California. If he loses, you take a ban until the conventions. Deal?

 

[Gutek]

Great? Even if he did somehow win CA by 2 points... its over. She'll have egg on her face and Bernie will keep the charade going into the convention which hes going to do regardless of the outcome of the upcoming primaries.

Trump had it right when he said the folk who gets the most votes should be the nominee. Its amazing how folks railing against a "rigged" election system don't even want to acknowledge the notion that the candidate who actually has more votes should be the nominee. Do they call it a revolution because they can't win an actual democratic election?

I'm not arguing that Bernie is getting the nom. All I am insinuating is that Hillary is looking like a weaker candidate by the day. She is having a lot of problems right now. Maybe not debating Bernie was a bad idea.

My money where your mouth is. I'll donate a hundred bucks to the Sanders campaign if he wins California. If he loses, you take a ban until the conventions. Deal?

Nah, only if you donate to me. Also, I talked about a toss up - I never said that Bernie is going to win this for sure.

 

[Suikoguy]

Bernie needs about 70% of the remaining delegates to win. Unlikely, yes, but possible and that's why Bernie's fighting maybe harder than ever for that chance.

I'm not the one who's bad at math.

No, it's factually impossible for him to do anything to win. It's going to require something outside of his control, a surprise indictment, Hillary falling ill, etc.

He is not going to suddenly swing california 50 points in his direction.

Your ability in math does not dictate reality.

 

[Stinkles]

Bernie needs about 70% of the remaining delegates to win. Unlikely, yes, but possible and that's why Bernie's fighting maybe harder than ever for that chance.

I'm not the one who's bad at math.

You're not great at math, statistics, probability and political philosophy.

 

[Davide]

No, it's factually impossible for him to do anything to win.

Wrong. I think the word you're looking for is unlikely.

You're not great at math, statistics, probability and political philosophy.

Nice.

 

[BanGy.nz]

This is less recent. The one in the NYT is from Wednesday aka yesterday.

The PPIC poll you're referencing is random digit dialing poll and is still very much the outlier.

 

[Mully]

I think he is discontent with the established Democratic Party and has found traction with those sentiments among a significant portion of the Party's voters.

He is completely positioning for post election influence, as he should, if he truly wants to see change within the party and hope to lend more political weight to his agenda.

Is this stunt making him friends with the Party? absolutely not; but it is, most likely in his eyes, an opportunity to continue to rally his supporters and the closer to the DNC the Sanders supporters continue to rally around him, the more legitimacy they possess in an important time for the party.

I can see what you mean when it comes to rallying his supporters, but these are the same supporters who have threatened super-delegates, DNC chairs, and Hillary supporters. I know that's a small subset of Sanders' voters, but they are the least realistic and most vitriolic of his bunch. Wouldn't stoking those supporters even further with a debate, make the fire too large for Sanders to control when it comes time to pivot support for Hillary in the general?

My point is that I can appreciate Sanders' strategy, but it doesn't work when it comes time to cheer on Hillary; and a debate with Donald Trump can make such a switch that more difficult. Adding to that, there are so many ways Sanders can inadvertently fuck Hillary over for the general election and so few ways Sanders can actually win this debate for himself and the party. He could pair up with Trump to denigrate the DNC. He could accidentally fall into a trap set by either Fox News moderators or Trump into agreeing with the RNC nominee about Hillary. He could be bullied and nitpicked by Trump to the point that no matter how sensical he sounds, he'll have to deal with hundreds of fans cheering him on. Etc.

I hope Sanders realizes how many ways he could destroy his credibility and the trustworthiness of the DNC by doing this. I get where he's coming from, but now is not the time to upend the entire system when Trump is the other option for Americans.