Support NeoGAF

[thezerofire]

Your admission of the massive public pressure proves my point. It doesn't have to come from the president, though, but certainly it can only help if the President does speak out on it. The bully pulpit is downplayed by Hillary's supporters for no intellectually honest reason.


Your ad hominem aside, you're trying to fight Bernie supporters as much as Bernie supporters are fighting Hillary supporters.



It's "Appoint justices AND voice public support" (Bernie) vs. "Appoint justices" (Hillary). Anyone with even minor quantitative reasoning skills can see that even if voicing public support doesn't help (not sure what your basis for that is), then Bernie's plan still has everything Hillary's plan has.


The fact that Bernie has also promised to appoint justices that will overturn Citizens United (and he did before she did) alone brings their plan to equivalence. Add in the fact that he has populism fervor and asks his supporters to volunteer and change the way Americans often think that voting is enough, while Hillary hasn't, puts Bernie's plan on top in terms of tools being used to fight for progress.

If I am wrong, and those mocking and denying the effects of populist fervor are right, then that still means the plans are equal.

So if I'm wrong:

Effective tools under Hillary: Appoint liberal justices.
Effective tools under Bernie: Appoint liberal justices.

I am right:

Effective tools under Hillary: Appoint liberal justices.
Effective tools under Bernie: Appoint liberal justices and use the bully pulpit.

Even if I'm wrong, the others are not right.

Where's your evidence that Hillary doesn't use the bully pulpit? Especially since it seems pretty effective now that Obama is finally using it and she'll likely face a similar congress

 

[dramatis]

I didn't lie about Hillary.

She has indeed supported tough on crime policies, mass incarceration, the war on drugs, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the Iraq War.

After you demonstrated earlier that you don't know how Union PACs work in an attempt to twist Bernie's and Hillary's donation history around, I think you should stop while you're behind.

If the best you can do is "(unsubstantiated nonsense)", then I suppose there is nothing to discuss. You made it to the 'lies' line and didn't read anything else.

Moreover, when I made the posts on the donation histories, it wasn't an intent to twist their donations around, but rather to point out the problem in claiming Hillary is funded by corporations, when she's being funded by individuals. If you missed that point and instead triggered on how I merely linked the OpenSecrets graphic and read it out loud, okay.

I support a 15 dollar minimum wage, single payer, and a president that isn't a war hawk. Why should I vote for Hillary?

Although honestly the main reason why I don't want to support her is that my own family back in Haiti are deeply upset about the Clintons and what they see as profiteering on their part after the earthquake.

Strangely enough, she supported single payer and got trounced for it. I also think it's likely her run as Secretary of State might have given her a different perspective on foreign policy, but I'll need to read more about it.

I did go off and read a long article about the Clintons in Haiti though. It sounds pretty messy. It's interesting in a way that it seems like they were overly hopeful about being helpful, and not particularly efficient or effective with resources, nor very good about the methods by which they went about helping the Haitians.

I also learned the Haiti's current president was formerly a singer that was famous for taking his pants off during performances. The situation must have been quite bad. In comparison it feels almost okay that we have Trump in the US race.

Seems like Haiti will have presidential elections soon (supposedly October). I hope I remember the date when time comes; it feels like a lot of what was said in that article were barely reported in the US news. Nowadays it feels like the big news networks don't report significant news unless they involve big countries, like Russia or China. Haiti's been forgotten since the earthquake.

 

[FiggyCal]

So you doubt she'd appoint someone on the left.

And even if she were to appoint such a person, you think that there need to be Presidentially-inspired marches and demonstrations in order to "pressure" five justices.

Am I understanding you correctly here?



I support all of those things, too. But I have realistic expectations of what can and cannot get through Congress over the next 6 years.

She's supported raising the minimum wage, has supported single payer, and I make no predictions on war. If there were a really liberal Congress that put a $15 dollar minimum wage bill on her desk, I have no doubt she'd sign it.

As far as Haiti goes, I haven't heard much about it, I admit.

The King and Queen of Haiti

By far the most consequential moment was that visit on Sunday, January 30, 2011. Two months before, just 10 months after the quake, Haiti had plowed ahead with a presidential election under pressure from Washington. Donors blamed then-President Préval, a skeptic of foreign aid and investment, for what had clearly become a glacial mess of a reconstruction effort. In short, they wanted him out. But the election was a fiasco. Voting halted five hours early on Election Day as nearly every candidate threw out accusations of fraud. When the results showed the candidate of Préval’s party advancing to a runoff anyway, supporters of the eliminated No. 3 candidate, the Haitian pop star Michel Martelly—better known by his stage name, “Sweet Micky”—rioted in protest for days.

Despite all that was happening around the globe that day, the secretary’s most important mission was to make sure all the parties in Haiti agreed to put Martelly back into the race—salvaging the election, in her view, and with it Haiti’s place in U.S. economic statecraft.
...

To many close observers of Haiti, the Clintons made the same mistake that has been made for generations. Though striking a populist pose, in practice they were attracted to power in Haiti, which meant making alliances and friendships within the Haitian elite. “The strong push toward Caracol is evidence of this,” says Robert Maguire, an expert on development in Haiti and the director of The George Washington University’s Latin American and Hemispheric Studies Program. Their project responded not as much to the “more inclusive development priorities pushed for by most Haitians and their government … but rather to those supported by Haiti’s economic elites, who stood to benefit the most from them.”

A Look at Hillary (and Bill) Clinton’s Past in Haiti

Martelly, a businessman and strong proponent of foreign investment in Haiti, was “attractive” to the U.S. State Department, Katz noted. He very much had a “Clinton view of Haiti and a Clinton view of the world.”

That’s how Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory geared toward making clothes for export to the U.S., was born in 2012. Bill lobbied the U.S. Congress to eliminate tariffs on textiles sewn in Haiti, and the couple pledged that through Caracol Park, Haitian-based producers would have comparative advantages that would balance the country’s low productivity, provide the U.S. with cheap textiles, and put money in Haitians’ pockets.

The State Department promised that the park would create 60,000 jobs within five years of its opening, and Bill declared that 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order.” But Caracol currently employs just 5,479 people full time. “The entire concept of building the Haitian economy through these low-wage jobs is kind of faulty,” Katz stated on Monday. Furthermore, working conditions in the park are decent, but far from what should be considered acceptable.

Not only did Caracol miss the mark on job creation, but it also took jobs away from indigenous farmers. Caracol was built on fertile farmland, which Haiti doesn’t have much of to begin with. According to Katz, Haitian farmers feel that they have been taken advantage of, their land taken away from them, and that they have not been compensated fairly.

Hundreds of families have been forced off the land to make room for Caracol. The Clintons led the aggressive push to make garment factories to better Haiti’s economy, but what it really created was wealth for foreign companies. This trend was echoed when the Clintons helped launch a Marriott hotel in the capital, which has really only benefited wealthy foreigners and the Haitian elite.

Clintons' Pet Project for Privatized 'Aid' to Haiti Stealing Workers' Wages: Report

Haiti's Caracol Industrial Park—the U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investment—is systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.

Role of Hillary Clinton’s brother in Haiti gold mine raises eyebrows

Drive down the rutted dirt road a couple of miles to the guardhouse, then hike 15 minutes up to the overgrown hilltop, and there it is: a piece of 3 1/2 -inch-wide PVC pipe sticking out of the ground.

This is what, at least for the time being, a gold mine looks like.

It also has become a potentially problematic issue for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she considers a second presidential run, after it was revealed this month that in 2013, one of her brothers was added to the advisory board of the company that owns the mine.

Tony Rodham’s involvement with the mine, which has become a source of controversy in Haiti because of concern about potential environmental damage and the belief that the project will primarily benefit foreign investors, was first revealed in publicity about an upcoming book on the Clintons by author Peter Schweizer.

Other things that my family is telling me is harder to corroborate tbh. There is a general anger towards the Clintons, at least from what I've experienced.

 

[King Tubby]

Here is an analysis by tyt of the current democratic race.

Kind of disappointing analysis. They're getting so worked up over one poll in one state.

 

[FiggyCal]

If the best you can do is "(unsubstantiated nonsense)", then I suppose there is nothing to discuss. You made it to the 'lies' line and didn't read anything else.

Moreover, when I made the posts on the donation histories, it wasn't an intent to twist their donations around, but rather to point out the problem in claiming Hillary is funded by corporations, when she's being funded by individuals. If you missed that point and instead triggered on how I merely linked the OpenSecrets graphic and read it out loud, okay.


Strangely enough, she supported single payer and got trounced for it. I also think it's likely her run as Secretary of State might have given her a different perspective on foreign policy, but I'll need to read more about it.

I did go off and read a long article about the Clintons in Haiti though. It sounds pretty messy. It's interesting in a way that it seems like they were overly hopeful about being helpful, and not particularly efficient or effective with resources, nor very good about the methods by which they went about helping the Haitians.

I also learned the Haiti's current president was formerly a singer that was famous for taking his pants off during performances. The situation must have been quite bad. In comparison it feels almost okay that we have Trump in the US race.

Seems like Haiti will have presidential elections soon (supposedly October). I hope I remember the date when time comes; it feels like a lot of what was said in that article were barely reported in the US news. Nowadays it feels like the big news networks don't report significant news unless they involve big countries, like Russia or China. Haiti's been forgotten since the earthquake.

Apparently he is known for taking his pants off in concert. No wonder my dad never let me listen to his music when I was younger... (edit: ah.. you said that)

The guy has a very sketchy past, including involvement with a known rapists and a drug ring.

Also:

On July 28, 2015, obscene Haiti dictator Michel Martelly told a questioning citizen, a brave woman in Miragoane, she’s a whore who needs “to get her ass beat up.” In the audio of the incident, we can hear Martelly shouting to audience applause. He publicly tells her how he would shut her up. He tells her to “Go get someone to fuck the shit out of you.” – “Pran raje a pou yon Nég al fé bagay avé w, féme dyol ou konsa. ….Si se bagay ou vle fé, pran nénpót Nég lan foul la epi travése mirray la wonfle bounda w. — If it’s sex you want to have, pick any man from the crowd, go over the fence and get banged.”

 

[HylianTom]

The King and Queen of Haiti


A Look at Hillary (and Bill) Clinton’s Past in Haiti



Clintons' Pet Project for Privatized 'Aid' to Haiti Stealing Workers' Wages: Report



Role of Hillary Clinton’s brother in Haiti gold mine raises eyebrows


Other things that my family is telling me is harder to corroborate tbh. There is a general anger towards the Clintons, at least from what I've experienced.

What a mess.

I also did some reading on the Clinton-Bush Fund and the Clinton Foundation's websites. They seem waaaay too cozy with the local govt and too focused on getting people mortgages and not nearly focused enough on restoring basic infrastructure and services.

 

[Inuhanyou]

What a mess.

I also did some reading on the Clinton-Bush Fund and the Clinton Foundation's websites. They seem waaaay too cozy with the local govt and too focused on getting people mortgages and not nearly focused enough on restoring basic infrastructure and services.

Well they were the ones who started the deregulation which was in large part to the Clinton's being lobbied aggressively by the banks. Its just another continuation of how they do things.

 

[HylianTom]

Well they were the ones who started the deregulation which was in large part to the Clinton's being lobbied aggressively by the banks. Its just another continuation of how they do things.

Geez.. it almost sounds here like you're lamenting the involvement of big money in our political system. If only there were some way to address that. Hmm..

 

[NeoXChaos]

Geez.. it almost sounds here like you're lamenting the involvement of big money in our political system. If only there were some way to address that. Hmm..

raises hand

Mr. Tom I know the answer: The Supreme Court.

 

[Days like these...]

Elizabeth Warren not ruling out joining Bernie on the campaign trail.

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/07/elizabeth-warren-wont-rule-out-joining-bernie-sanders/

 

[Jobbs]

Here's my thoughts.

With Obama and as will/would be hte case with Hillary, republicans demonize them as being hyper liberal, super liberal, the most liberal democrat ever in history, etc. Whereas that's just not the case with either of them.

It'd be nice to have a candidate who actually WAS those things for so many reasons.

 

[JustenP88]

Here's my thoughts.

With Obama and as will/would be hte case with Hillary, republicans demonize them as being hyper liberal, super liberal, the most liberal democrat ever in history, etc. Whereas that's just not the case with either of them.

It'd be nice to have a candidate who actually WAS those things for so many reasons.

This is why I don't get why the Hillary Left wants to bang the "unelectable Socialist" drum so hard... As if the Republicans won't use that rhetoric against any potential nominee?

What's next, "vote Hillary because Bernie is too old"?

 

[Days like these...]

I've thought alot about this and I don't think the word 'socialist' is as big and scary to people when you put a face to the word. Republicans won't be able to use it against someone (Bernie) who openly admits to being one. It has lost it's stigma after 8 years of calling President Obama a socialist.

 

[Jobbs]

I've thought alot about this and I don't think the word 'socialist' is as big and scary to people when you put a face to the name. Republicans won't be able to use it against someone (Bernie) who openly admits to being one. It has lost it's stigma after 8 years of calling President Obama a socialist.

I'm tired of the term in general. We're already socialists. Republicans are in favor of social security and other socialist programs. The only arguing point is to what degree we are socialists.

 

[FiggyCal]

I'm tired of the term in general. We're already socialists. Republicans are in favor of social security and other socialist programs. The only arguing point is to what degree we are socialists.

No we're not all socialists. Socialism is not about taxes, welfare or government programs.

 

[Inuhanyou]

No we're not all socialists. Socialism is not about taxes, welfare or government programs.

"Social Democracy" is what Bernie looks toward as a guide in Europe, more specifically those social democracies that use the state to boost the population's basic QOL. He is a social democrat. The democratic aspect is specifically there to distinguish between the general socialism and the after mentioned subset.

Even more confusing, democratic socialism(a subset of socialism) can overlap with social democracy in many ways, even though it can also be used in the context of the exact opposite of how Bernie presents it(a rejection of state intervention as a means of reformation, as capitalism itself is considered untenable)

Bernie's entire thought process is state intervention to provide regulated capitalism and to fix the underlying issues regarding the contradiction between free markets and corruption. That is somewhere in between and a very delicate subset.

 

[benjipwns]

Geez.. it almost sounds here like you're lamenting the involvement of big money in our political system. If only there were some way to address that. Hmm..

Eliminate the state?

 

[Kusagari]

I don't get what Hillary's camp throwing around the socialist word is supposed to do.

I mean what are they going to do when people see Hillary throw around the term like a boogeyman at Bernie but look at their campaigns and realize they're not that different.

I mean I'd be really curious to hear how Hillary would defend herself when asked how Bernie is a socialist and she isn't.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I don't get what Hillary's camp throwing around the socialist word is supposed to do.

I mean what are they going to do when people see Hillary throw around the term like a boogeyman at Bernie but look at their campaigns and realize they're not that different.

I mean I'd be really curious to hear how Hillary would defend herself when asked how Bernie is a socialist and she isn't.

I'd be more curious to see how Hillary defends herself from the honest fact that she is a hypocrite on every issue brought up during this campagin. I'd like to see Bernie lay the smackdown on her. Can't wait for October.

On the other hand, i don't see how Hillary could survive by just name calling other people. Considering Bernie's positions are favored by a majority of people i don't see what exactly she could say.

Even Bernie's centrist positions on gun control is pithy compared to the dirt he could dig up on her if he felt like it.

 

[Days like these...]

I don't get what Hillary's camp throwing around the socialist word is supposed to do.

I mean what are they going to do when people see Hillary throw around the term like a boogeyman at Bernie but look at their campaigns and realize they're not that different.

I mean I'd be really curious to hear how Hillary would defend herself when asked how Bernie is a socialist and she isn't.

In hilldawgs defense it's not her campaign that is using the word (yet). Its her fans but I was actually referring more so to republicans trying to use the word 'socialist' against Bernie.

 

[Kusagari]

In hilldawgs defense it's not her campaign that is using the word (yet). Its her fans but I was actually referring more so to republicans trying to use the word 'socialist' against Bernie.

Oh I know her camp isn't throwing it around.

I was just musing because the potential mudslinging of the word has been brought up recently.

 

[sycam0re]

Kind of disappointing analysis. They're getting so worked up over one poll in one state.

It's not just "one state", though. It's New Hampshire, a state which has incredible significance in primary elections.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

It's not just "one state", though. It's New Hampshire, a state which has incredible significance in primary elections.

Yep. Jed Bartlett has never lost an election in NH.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's not just "one state", though. It's New Hampshire, a state which has incredible significance in primary elections.

From a quick look at more recent cycles.

Won NH, won primary.
Kerry
Gore
McCain
Romney
HW Bush

Lost NH, won primary.
Obama
B Clinton
W Bush
Dole

Back to 1992 and excluding sitting Presidents.

Well, and Jed Bartlet in the won fictional both.

 

[YoungHav]

All you need to know about Sweet Mickey is he put goons from a former CIA backed regime in his administration.

 

[And_Gignac]

necro bumping to avoid creating a new thread when the topic is basically the same.


PPP latest poll basically confirmed the trend:

There's been a big shift on the Democratic side since April as well. Bernie Sanders nowleads the field in the state with 42% to 35% for Hillary Clinton, 6% for JimWebb, 4% for Martin O'Malley, 2% for Lincoln Chafee, and 1% for Lawrence Lessig.


The main story in New Hampshire is how universally popular Sanders has become with the Democratic electorate. 78% see him favorably to only 12% with a negative opinion that makes him easily the most popular candidate on either side with their party's voters.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's favorability numbers have taken a little bit of a hit- she was at 78/10 with Democratic primary voters in April, but now she's at a 63/25 spread.

Welp, I guess HillaryGAF PoliGAF was wrong about the last poll being an outlier.

 

[NeoXChaos]

necro bumping to avoid creating a new thread when the topic is basically the same.


PPP latest poll basically confirmed the trend:




Welp, I guess HillaryGAF PoliGAF was wrong about the last poll bieng an outlier.

Means nothing this early in the game.

 

[Angry Grimace]

It's not just "one state", though. It's New Hampshire, a state which has incredible significance in primary elections.

NH has dramatically less significance than you are envisioning

Clinton also isn't doing anything

 

[NeoXChaos]

It's not just "one state", though. It's New Hampshire, a state which has incredible significance in primary elections.

that is what the media wants you to think. IA and NH are overrated and do not deserve the attention they get every 4 years.

 

[Knoxcore]

necro bumping to avoid creating a new thread when the topic is basically the same.


PPP latest poll basically confirmed the trend:




Welp, I guess HillaryGAF PoliGAF was wrong about the last poll bieng an outlier.

Well, I for one will say it again. Bernie Sanders will win NH. Without a doubt. He will win NH. VT neighbors NH. NH tends to be independent minded. Bradley almost won NH in 2000 against Gore. I support Hillary Clinton but never did I think she had this state in the bag for these three specific reasons.

Having said that, the latest poll from Iowa has Clinton leading Sanders by 34 points. The RCP average has her leading by 27 points. In South Carolina she is leading by 50+ points. Lets look at the calendar and who is more likely to win these states today.

The early states.

IA - Clinton
NH - Sanders
NV - Sanders (I actually think Clinton wins NV by a decent margin but lets give it to Sanders)
SC - Clinton

Then you have Super Tuesday on March 1.

AL - Clinton
AR - Clinton
CO - Sanders (caucus and anti-Clinton)
GA - Clinton
MA - Clinton (can Sanders pull off a win here? Clinton led Warren by 20+ points here)
MN - Sanders (caucus and highly liberal)
NC - Clinton
OK - Clinton
TN - Clinton
TX - Clinton
VT - Sanders (his home state)
VA - Clinton

Under this calendar, assuming Biden's entry does not change the dynamics of the race much (highly unlikely--he will siphon votes from Clinton and lower her leads everywhere) and assuming the email story resolves itself by February, the the Democratic primary is over March 1. Now, if Biden announces and says Warren will be his VP then all bets are off. I may jump off the Hillary bandwagon.

 

[kirblar]

NH has dramatically less significance than you are envisioning

Clinton also isn't doing anything

I wouldn't waste money if I were her either, other than putting in token appearances.

 

[starwarsfan541]

Well, I for one will say it again. Bernie Sanders will win NH. Without a doubt. He will win NH. VT neighbors NH. NH tends to be independent minded. Bradley almost won NH in 2000 against Gore. I support Hillary Clinton but never did I think she had this state in the bag for these three specific reasons.

Having said that, the latest poll from Iowa has Clinton leading Sanders by 34 points. The RCP average has her leading by 27 points. In South Carolina she is leading by 50+ points. Lets look at the calendar and who is more likely to win these states today.

The early states.

IA - Clinton
NH - Sanders
NV - Sanders (I actually think Clinton wins NV by a decent margin but lets give it to Sanders)
SC - Clinton

Then you have Super Tuesday on March 1.

AL - Clinton
AR - Clinton
CO - Sanders (caucus and anti-Clinton)
GA - Clinton
MA - Clinton (can Sanders pull off a win here? Clinton led Warren by 20+ points here)
MN - Sanders (caucus and highly liberal)
NC - Clinton
OK - Clinton
TN - Clinton
TX - Clinton
VT - Sanders (his home state)
VA - Clinton

Under this calendar, assuming Biden's entry does not change the dynamics of the race much (highly unlikely--he will siphon votes from Clinton and lower her leads everywhere) and assuming the email story resolves itself by February, the the Democratic primary is over March 1. Now, if Biden announces and says Warren will be his VP then all bets are off. I may jump off the Hillary bandwagon.

I think Biden could win SC.

 

[And_Gignac]

Well, I for one will say it again. Bernie Sanders will win NH. Without a doubt. He will win NH. VT neighbors NH. NH tends to be independent minded. Bradley almost won NH in 2000 against Gore. I support Hillary Clinton but never did I think she had this state in the bag for these three specific reasons.

Having said that, the latest poll from Iowa has Clinton leading Sanders by 34 points. The RCP average has her leading by 27 points. In South Carolina she is leading by 50+ points. Lets look at the calendar and who is more likely to win these states today.

The early states.

IA - Clinton
NH - Sanders
NV - Sanders (I actually think Clinton wins NV by a decent margin but lets give it to Sanders)
SC - Clinton

Then you have Super Tuesday on March 1.

AL - Clinton
AR - Clinton
CO - Sanders (caucus and anti-Clinton)
GA - Clinton
MA - Clinton (can Sanders pull off a win here? Clinton led Warren by 20+ points here)
MN - Sanders (caucus and highly liberal)
NC - Clinton
OK - Clinton
TN - Clinton
TX - Clinton
VT - Sanders (his home state)
VA - Clinton

Under this calendar, assuming Biden's entry does not change the dynamics of the race much (highly unlikely--he will siphon votes from Clinton and lower her leads everywhere) and assuming the email story resolves itself by February, the the Democratic primary is over March 1. Now, if Biden announces and says Warren will be his VP then all bets are off. I may jump off the Hillary bandwagon.

This a great analysis unlike "it means nothing lol" comments.

The biggest factors that could give Sanders a competitive profile are:
-The debates
-Keeping the momentum of his actual constant growth
-The Clinton e-mail drama.
-Biden getting into the race
-NH-Iowa wins

Such factors could totally reshape Super Tuesday. But yeah, as of now Sanders would need a perfect star alignment for him to win.

 

[ivysaur12]

I think Biden could win SC.

How? The Democratic electorate in the primary is very black. If there's early any state he's not winning, it's SC.

 

[Jarmel]

I think Biden is the big question mark. Clinton will without a doubt end up winning if he doesn't get in.

 

[ivysaur12]

I think Biden is the big question mark. Clinton will without a doubt end up winning if he doesn't get in.

Let's say he does get in with the support of Elizabeth Warren. What's to say that Sanders's numbers don't also go down? His numbers might even be inflated because he's seen as the only legitimate NotHillary in the primary.

Biden is a question mark, but Hillary would still probably win, at least at this point.

 

[Knoxcore]

I think Biden could win SC.

This a great analysis unlike "it means nothing lol" comments.

The biggest factors that could give Sanders a competitive profile are:
-The debates
-Keeping the momentum of his actual constant growth
-The Clinton e-mail drama.
-Biden getting into the race
-NH-Iowa wins

Sush factors could totally reshape Super Tuesday. But yeah, as of now Sanders would need a perfect star aligntment for him to win.

I give Clinton the Southern states but I think a few well placed ads by Sanders touting his involvement in the Civil Rights era can go a long way and make a place like SC competitive. Can Biden win SC? I don't know. It certainly wasn't his fit in 2008 but he has come a long way as VP. IA keeps surprising me. I thought Sanders would of had it in the bag by now. I don't know what's the mindset on the ground there.

Now I have nothing against Sanders, but with regards to the debates, I worry he may come off as a grumpy, angry, old white guy. And I say that with the utmost respect. So I'll reserve judgment. In 2007/8 Clinton did appear to be Presidential in the debates and that was certainly one of her strengths. But its been 8 years and she is clearly rusty.

Let's say he does get in with the support of Elizabeth Warren. What's to say that Sanders's numbers don't also go down? His numbers might even be inflated because he's seen as the only legitimate NotHillary in the primary.

Biden is a question mark, but Hillary would still probably win, at least at this point.

See this is what I don't know. Is Sanders pulling in new independent minded voters and liberal voters or is he the anti-Hillary. I imagine it's a combination of the two. And if it is, then Biden jumping in results in both Sanders and Clinton losing support.

 

[RastaMentality]

I can't see Sanders beating Clinton in a debate. His speeches are good and play well with crowds but I don't think he's that strong of a speaker to go head to head with her.

 

[Jarmel]

Let's say he does get in with the support of Elizabeth Warren. What's to say that Sanders's numbers don't also go down? His numbers might even be inflated because he's seen as the only legitimate NotHillary in the primary.

Biden is a question mark, but Hillary would still probably win, at least at this point.

I'm not saying Sanders will win but possibly Biden will come away with the nomination. Biden will almost certainly take votes from both candidates. Those from Sanders in that he will appear to be a viable alternative to Clinton, and those from Clinton as he might be a better candidate for those voters.

 

[crazyjah2003]

If the best you can do is "(unsubstantiated nonsense)", then I suppose there is nothing to discuss. You made it to the 'lies' line and didn't read anything else.

Moreover, when I made the posts on the donation histories, it wasn't an intent to twist their donations around, but rather to point out the problem in claiming Hillary is funded by corporations, when she's being funded by individuals. If you missed that point and instead triggered on how I merely linked the OpenSecrets graphic and read it out loud, okay.


Strangely enough, she supported single payer and got trounced for it. I also think it's likely her run as Secretary of State might have given her a different perspective on foreign policy, but I'll need to read more about it.

I did go off and read a long article about the Clintons in Haiti though. It sounds pretty messy. It's interesting in a way that it seems like they were overly hopeful about being helpful, and not particularly efficient or effective with resources, nor very good about the methods by which they went about helping the Haitians.

I also learned the Haiti's current president was formerly a singer that was famous for taking his pants off during performances. The situation must have been quite bad. In comparison it feels almost okay that we have Trump in the US race.

Seems like Haiti will have presidential elections soon (supposedly October). I hope I remember the date when time comes; it feels like a lot of what was said in that article were barely reported in the US news. Nowadays it feels like the big news networks don't report significant news unless they involve big countries, like Russia or China. Haiti's been forgotten since the earthquake.

I am Haitian and extremely interested in politics. I am very sick right now so I can't articulate my desired response well enough, but I don't see anything here I would not agree with. Our "Trump" had massive support from the United States to get in power(Would not have gotten anywhere near the presidency without that) and the US embassy in Haiti is practically a subsidiary of his personal interest. He is also heavely rumored to be a US citizen thus unfit the hold the position according to our laws we fear there was a massive cover up when this was brought to light.

My main problems with the Clintons is that Bill in particular has a massive list of unfulfilled promises he's made publicly.... the only word the general public would use for their relationships with us is indeed profiteering.

I changed my nationality in a fit of anger after he was elected, if Haitians openly chose him, US influence or not, to be our president, it was all only going to get much worse.

 

[Blader]

See this is what I don't know. Is Sanders pulling in new independent minded voters and liberal voters or is he the anti-Hillary. I imagine it's a combination of the two. And if it is, then Biden jumping in results in both Sanders and Clinton losing support.

I don't know, I know there's a decent sized "anyone but Hilary" movement, but I just don't see Biden being able to make that big of a dent in her numbers.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I wouldn't waste money if I were her either, other than putting in token appearances.

I think the impact of that is being underestimated by a lot. A contested primary doesn't hurt her as much as Sanders supporters seem to believe and she has a lot of money she's sitting around not spending.

This is probably because its August 2015, not February 2016.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Ah yes the hide in the shadows strategy. Brilliant.

I think it's more the more people see Hillary in person the worse she does.

You guys really can spin anything in her favor. 1st it's she is statistically our best chance! Then it's well these numbers don't mean anything. Now not campaigning is the key to victory.

 

[Blader]

Ah yes the hide in the shadows strategy. Brilliant.

I think it's more the more people see Hillary in person the worse she does.

You guys really can spin anything in her favor. 1st it's she is statistically our best chance! Then it's well these numbers don't mean anything. Now not campaigning is the key to victory.

I mean, is that not still true? Statistically Sanders still doesn't pose any kind of threat to Hilary.

 

[dramatis]

I am Haitian and extremely interested in politics. I am very sick right now so I can't articulate my desired response well enough, but I don't see anything here I would not agree with. Our "Trump" had massive support from the United States to get in power(Would not have gotten anywhere near the presidency without that) and the US embassy in Haiti is practically a subsidiary of his personal interest. He is also heavely rumored to be a US citizen thus unfit the hold the position according to our laws we fear there was a massive cover up when this was brought to light.

My main problems with the Clintons is that Bill in particular has a massive list of unfulfilled promises he's made publicly.... the only word the general public would use for their relationships with us is indeed profiteering.

I changed my nationality in a fit of anger after he was elected, if Haitians openly chose him, US influence or not, to be our president, it was all only going to get much worse.

I actually feel kind of bad, I didn't write very specifically about the problems facing Haiti at all, I could only generalize a bit based off of one lengthy article I read about the Clintons and their relationship with Haiti. FiggyCal linked it earlier (I read it before he linked it though): The King and Queen of Haiti. The piece does say that donor pressure and pressure from Washington, DC that forced presidential elections to happen in Haiti, but possibly the reason Martelly was elected was because of poor voter turnout.

Bill has the bad habit of wanting to be liked by everybody, so he often says things that are pleasant that don't work out in reality. That's not so much him being a liar as him being a guy who wants to do good, but lacks the ability to do as much as he says he wants to do. Yes, even Bill Clinton can overreach (or should I say especially him?).

I hope you get better, and in October get your Haitian friends and family to go and vote, and hopefully get someone into office in Haiti who can steer the ship better. If Martelly tries to stay in office without majority vote, the US State department will probably turn against him.

Looks like the parliament vote earlier this month went a bit poorly though.

 

[Pastry]

Ah yes the hide in the shadows strategy. Brilliant.

I think it's more the more people see Hillary in person the worse she does.

You guys really can spin anything in her favor. 1st it's she is statistically our best chance! Then it's well these numbers don't mean anything. Now not campaigning is the key to victory.

The numbers don't mean anything because statistically she has the best chance.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Ah yes the hide in the shadows strategy. Brilliant.

I think it's more the more people see Hillary in person the worse she does.

You guys really can spin anything in her favor. 1st it's she is statistically our best chance! Then it's well these numbers don't mean anything. Now not campaigning is the key to victory.

Yes she still is. She is still popular in the Democratic Party Biden or no Biden. NH means little in the grand scheme of the primary. She still leads broadly with the demographic that will decide the nomination. The primary map favors her down the line. Is Bernie's perceived media momentum strong enough to suddenly shift the race from Clinton if he somehow won 1 or both IA and NH? remains to be seen.

 

[Inuhanyou]

The numbers don't mean anything because statistically she has the best chance.

Hopefully that trend is diminished as time goes on. Bernie usually talks nothing but policy, and Clinton is very light on that considering how her positions on many issues are still not addressed, or rather she won't address them until after she becomes President like XL Keystone.

If Bernie can hit her on her credibility, i think he has a shot to take more of the Democratic and independent voting bloc away from her. She would get the conservative independents, and he would likely get the liberal.

 

[Fenderputty]

This is why I don't get why the Hillary Left wants to bang the "unelectable Socialist" drum so hard... As if the Republicans won't use that rhetoric against any potential nominee?

What's next, "vote Hillary because Bernie is too old"?

Because people like my parents who are straight dem voters don't listen to the hyperbole from the right. They did, however, notice Bernie made the claim already himself and weren't happy about it.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Let's say he does get in with the support of Elizabeth Warren. What's to say that Sanders's numbers don't also go down? His numbers might even be inflated because he's seen as the only legitimate NotHillary in the primary.

Biden is a question mark, but Hillary would still probably win, at least at this point.

I kind of think the longer Biden takes to jump in, the more obvious it is that he's doing it as a favor to Hillary to take the wind out of Bernie's sails.