Agaisnt GOP, Sanders doing as good/better than Clinton in some key swing states.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course Clinton's answers are indeterminate double-speak. Her campaign is working under the assumption that this race is hers to lose. She doesn't want to say anything remotely controversial. That will remain the game plan, I'm sure, until and unless she needs to make up any ground for some reason.

When you're winning, you play it safe. I'm not thrilled about that - I'd rather have a truly charismatic candidate go all-out - but it's a proven strategy.
 
Leondexter said:
Of course Clinton's answers are indeterminate double-speak. Her campaign is working under the assumption that this race is hers to lose. She doesn't want to say anything remotely controversial. That will remain the game plan, I'm sure, until and unless she needs to make up any ground for some reason.

When you're winning, you play it safe. I'm not thrilled about that - I'd rather have a truly charismatic candidate go all-out - but it's a proven strategy.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I didn't understand why she engages in double-speak. I'm listing it as a difference between her and Sanders. Understanding it doesn't make it okay. Bottom line is that if giving a clear picture of your true intentions means you get less votes, then you deserve less votes.
 
soleil said:
I didn't say I didn't understand why she engages in double-speak. I'm listing it as a difference between her and Sanders. Understanding it doesn't make it okay. Bottom line is that if giving a clear picture of your true intentions means you get less votes, then you deserve less votes.
Click to expand...

What if her true intentions actually are to bend to the desires of voters? I mean, yeah, that's not what she says, either, but obviously she's willing to move on issues as public opinion changes. I know that politically, there's not much worse of an insult than "flip-flopper", but I don't see it as being so bad as long as it's not just lip service to get elected. If, for example, Hillary personally isn't in favor of gay marriage, but decided to support it politically when it became clear that public opinion was headed that way, I don't really have a problem with that.

I'd still rather have Sanders' view on the issues, but I don't think that he or Hillary are charismatic speakers like Bill Clinton or Obama, that could spark a big wave of change in the makeup of Congress.
 
Yellowtail said:
Sanders supporters when Clinton destroys him by 40+ points in all primary polls: "These polls are meaningless! It's just name recognition!"

Sanders supporters when he performs like a generic D (the same as Biden and Hillary) in one general election poll because of negative partisanship due to his lack of name recogntion: "This is so meaningful!"
Click to expand...
Yeah it's truly shocking people get excited about an underdog (that just happens to be right about just about everything) over Hilary fuckin Clinton.
 
Leondexter said:
What if her true intentions actually are to bend to the desires of voters? I mean, yeah, that's not what she says, either, but obviously she's willing to move on issues as public opinion changes. I know that politically, there's not much worse of an insult than "flip-flopper", but I don't see it as being so bad as long as it's not just lip service to get elected. If, for example, Hillary personally isn't in favor of gay marriage, but decided to support it politically when it became clear that public opinion was headed that way, I don't really have a problem with that.

I'd still rather have Sanders' view on the issues, but I don't think that he or Hillary are charismatic speakers like Bill Clinton or Obama, that could spark a big wave of change in the makeup of Congress.
Click to expand...
If Hillary's stance was "I'll support whatever democracy wants" then I'd have lots of respect for a politician who respects democracy so much that he/she pledged to follow the majority where it leads, even though I wouldn't agree with the lack of leadership coming from the Presidential office. It has its own admirable traits even if not perfect.

It's just that when she talks about her views, she doesn't present it that way. She presents it as if that's her true feelings, with no admission that her current claimed policies are a 180 (except for her Iraq vote, only because it was one of the reasons why Obama pulled ahead of her in 2008). So we're supposed to believe that her true feelings have evolved perfectly in lockstep with the majority opinion.

EDIT: Oh, and about your comment about charisma, you're right that neither she nor Sanders are as charismatic as Obama. But I think that Sanders' refreshing stances and authenticity are more than adequate replacements for charisma. People are clearly way more excited at his rallies than at other candidates' rallies. After Obama, a lot of people saw that charisma isn't the best judge of effectiveness. Sanders intends on involving the public to pressure the GOP into giving into his agenda, and that's a proven method. (Without endorsing the content of his policies, I point to Ronald Reagan using public pressure to get the Democrat-controlled Congress to pass his radically conservative agenda. That tactic works.)
 
soleil said:
If Hillary's stance was "I'll support whatever democracy wants" then I'd have lots of respect for a politician who respects democracy so much that he/she pledged to follow the majority where it leads, even though I wouldn't agree with the lack of leadership coming from the Presidential office. It has its own admirable traits even if not perfect.

It's just that when she talks about her views, she doesn't present it that way. She presents it as if that's her true feelings, with no admission that her current claimed policies are a 180 (except for her Iraq vote, only because it was one of the reasons why Obama pulled ahead of her in 2008). So we're supposed to believe that her true feelings have evolved perfectly in lockstep with the majority opinion.

EDIT: Oh, and about your comment about charisma, you're right that neither she nor Sanders are as charismatic as Obama. But I think that Sanders' refreshing stances and authenticity are more than adequate replacements for charisma. People are clearly way more excited at his rallies than at other candidates' rallies. After Obama, a lot of people saw that charisma isn't the best judge of effectiveness. Sanders intends on involving the public to pressure the GOP into giving into his agenda, and that's a proven method. (Without endorsing the content of his policies, I point to Ronald Reagan using public pressure to get the Democrat-controlled Congress to pass his radically conservative agenda. That tactic works.)
Click to expand...

I don't see anything to disagree with in here. :)

Well, maybe you're underestimating Tea Party stubbornness, but that's beside the point.
 
Leondexter said:
I don't see anything to disagree with in here. :)

Well, maybe you're underestimating Tea Party stubbornness, but that's beside the point.
Click to expand...
You know, I haven't kept up with how many in Congress are Tea Party versus "normal" Republicans? Anyone have rough numbers for House and Senate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Was there a better stage diver than Eddie Vedder?
25
1K
UltimaKilo replied
Quentin Tarantino on why movies are better than TV
2
66
3K
Zelduh replied
20 years on GAF better late than ever!?
22
1K
Days like these... replied
What cover songs do you feel are better than the original?
2 3 4 5
225
11K
RCX replied
Is there a better flavor combo than Grilled cheese and tomato soup?
2
93
3K
CokeDiet replied
Top Bottom