Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

Of course they haven't said exactly that. Don't be obtuse. But their public comments have made it clear that they're setting low bars for minority support in early primaries:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-brain-trust-says-he-can-beat-hillary-clinton

This, I don't deny. It's also goalpost shifting like fuck on your behalf. You started with "Sanders isn't trying to build a coalition of minorities" and you've ended with "Sanders doesn't expect minority votes early on." These are entirely different positions that aren't particularly similar to each other. Don't back away from how terrible your initial post was.

If they legitimately think winning over the whitest of white states is going to make minority Dems stand up and embrace Sanders, I'd say that's a huge stretch.

And are you aiming for awareness or support? Winning Iowa would raise awareness, but do you legitimately think it would significantly raise support?

Sanders support is good among minorities that know about him. If you look at Quinnipac's polling, you'll see that among white voters who know he is and black voters who know who he is, Sanders is actually relatively more popular among black voters. His problem has never been minority Democrats disliking him rather than liking him, it's always been the fact they don't know him. Awareness is support for Sanders.

Minority groups - the ones who would almost certainly experience lower turnout in the general in the event of a Sanders candidacy - face much higher barriers to voting than those of us in white America. It's an undeniable fact. We're talking about groups who face high levels of poverty and high levels of institutional discrimination - all barriers to voting.

So no, I'm not going to refer to the former group as "fucking disgraceful" if they don't show up to vote. Because for a lot of them, voting can be legitimately hard.

Yes, they face barriers to voting in general. They don't face barriers to voting Sanders if they would otherwise have voted Clinton. That's not how this shit works.

This is also, continually, assuming Sanders would have less minority support in a presidential election, based on the fact he has less minority support in a primary campaign, in which minorities don't know who he is anyway. The holes in this argument make Swiss cheese look content-heavy.

Bernie base of supporters are young white men who face little of this.

More terrible posting. Young white men don't comprise 35% of the Democratic primary electorate - they comprise about 13%, so even if Sanders won every single available young white vote (and as is, he only wins about 60% of them), there's a big old 23% more out there. You know what you just did? You told Symone Sanders, a black woman, that she must be a white man. You told Raul Grijalva, an older Latino, he must be young and white. You told Keith Ellison, an older black man, he must be a young and white. You told Sarah Silverman, an older women, she must be a young man.

You erased the voices of a huge number of women, and a huge number of minorities, taking part in a democratic expression of their voice. You told them that they can't be real, that they're not a part of this movement, that frankly they can just be ignored in the face of young white men. I hope you like it up in that ivory tower.

 

[Coriolanus]

And thats been the argument for what, 6 months now? Two debates and a presidential forum? Countless hours of news coverage while Clinton was going through her email thing?

Yeah. That's the strat. It's the best one available to him. Heck, it's the only one available to him.

 

[BertramCooper]

You know what you just did? You told Symone Sanders, a black woman, that she must be a white man. You told Raul Grijalva, an older Latino, he must be a young white. You told Keith Ellison, an older black man, he must be a young white. You told Sarah Silverman, an older women, she must be a young man.

You erased the voices of a huge number of women, and a huge number of minorities, taking part in a democratic expression of their voice. You told them that they can't be real, that they're not a part of this movement, that frankly they can just be ignored in the fact of young white men. I hope you like it up in that ivory tower.

Oh lord. Okay, dude. You totally win.

I'll end it here to avoid going down this fruitless path.

And don't call Sarah Silverman old. She's only 45.

 

[Makai]

Okay, young white people? Doesn't really change the point much in this specific case.

Did you base this claim on any polls you saw? I remember there being a difference, but the gap wasn't so large to say his supporters are just white college kids.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Oh lord. Okay, dude. You totally win.

I'll end it here to avoid going down this fruitless path.

And don't call Sarah Silverman old. She's only 45.

She's older than the average American. #pedant

 

[Veritigo_X]

Assuming we're talking about Sanders supporters that are talking about sitting out the election in the face of Trump or some other GOP shitbag that has various minority groups on the chopping block, yeah, I think it's safe to say that there's a good chance the majority of the people saying that are white. When you hear someone say "I won't see a difference under either president" it says it all.

 

[Coriolanus]

Assuming we're talking about Sanders supporters that are talking about sitting out the election in the face of Trump or some other GOP shitbag that has various minority groups on the chopping block, yeah, I think it's safe to say that there's a good chance the majority of the people saying that are white. When you hear someone say "I won't see a difference under either president" it says it all.

Which is a somewhat fair assumption. Problems are that we don't know how large that radical group is, and that, as we saw in 2008, push comes to shove, they do indeed go out and vote.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Assuming we're talking about Sanders supporters that are talking about sitting out the election in the face of Trump or some other GOP shitbag that has various minority groups on the chopping block, yeah, I think it's safe to say that there's a good chance the majority of the people saying that are white. When you hear someone say "I won't see a difference under either president" it says it all.

Yes, I know. I think Bertram's argument about minorities is terrible. What I'm saying is as a separate argument is that a) if you want to vote in the primaries for the most electable candidate, and b) you suppose that more Democrats will refuse to vote Clinton than Sanders and the amount of Republicans and independents will remain constant, then logically c) you should vote for Sanders. If you are rejecting this, then you are rejecting either the premise that more Democrats will refuse to vote Clinton than Sanders or the premise that the amount of Republican/independent voters is constant. Most people here aren't rejecting the last one, they're saying "It's a fucking disgrace because it might lead to Clinton losing", implying they're more worried about the Democratic voter rate than the Republican/independent one. This means there are more Clinton supporters who intend to sit out the election, so railing on at Sanders supporters for something they do less of is inane and hypocritical. The only reason you see them more is because Clinton supporters don't really have to admit they wouldn't vote Sanders because it is highly unlikely he will win.

 

[Makai]

Crab's argument is pretty clear and you guys aren't really addressing it.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Yes, I know. I think Bertram's argument about minorities is terrible. What I'm saying is as a separate argument is that a) if you want to vote in the primaries for the most electable candidate, and b) you suppose that more Democrats will refuse to vote Clinton than Sanders and the amount of Republicans and independents will remain constant, then logically c) you should vote for Sanders. If you are rejecting this, then you are rejecting either the premise that more Democrats will refuse to vote Clinton than Sanders or the premise that the amount of Republican/independent voters is constant. Most people here aren't rejecting the last one, they're saying "It's a fucking disgrace because it might lead to Clinton losing", implying they're more worried about the Democratic voter rate than the Republican/independent one. This means there are more Clinton supporters who intend to sit out the election, so railing on at Sanders supporters for something they do less of is inane and hypocritical. The only reason you see them more is because Clinton supporters don't really have to admit they wouldn't vote Sanders because it is highly unlikely he will win.

I think it's disingenuous to try to paint everyone as either a Clinton or Sanders supporter. It's disingenuous to believe that every democrat who wouldn't vote for Sanders isn't voting for him because Hillary lost. Sanders isn't a Democrat and he is trying to be the person to lead a party of Democrats. Whether many of these Democrats actually fall under the heading of "Clinton supporters" is debatable. So yes, I think there are lots of Democrats who don't want Sanders to be the standard bearer of the party because he has done as little as possible to support the party and at times actively talked down to Dems. I think Hillary, Joe and a host of others would do better than Sanders with Democrats. I believe Hillary has the potential to do better with voters who don't considering themselves Democrats and will likely gain more popular votes than a Sanders candidacy would get.

 

[Makai]

Scarborough predicts the party will steal the nomination at a brokered convention before they allow Trump to win.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think it's disingenuous to try to paint everyone as either a Clinton or Sanders supporter. It's disingenuous to believe that every democrat who wouldn't vote for Sanders isn't voting for him because Hillary lost. Sanders isn't a Democrat and he is trying to be the person to lead a party of Democrats. Whether many of these Democrats actually fall under the heading of "Clinton supporters" is debatable. So yes, I think there are lots of Democrats who don't want Sanders to be the standard bearer of the party because he has done as little as possible to support the party and at times actively talked down to Dems. I think Hillary, Joe and a host of others would do better than Sanders with Democrats.

Most people who have said "I will vote Sanders but not Clinton" are not doing it because Sanders personally lost. If Sanders lost but the presidential candidate was acceptable to them, they'd still vote. They're not doing so not because Sanders lost, but because Clinton isn't acceptable to them. Like, this is exactly the same for both groups of Clinton and Sanders supporters and the fact you don't understand this is baffling. Trying to defend it as okay when your guys refuse to vote a presidential-Sanders it on spurious reasons like "wasn't a Democrat", but paint Sanders people as "fucking disgraceful" when they refuse to vote a presidential-Clinton, is hypocrisy.

I'm not even arguing the notion that more Democrats might support a Clinton-presidency (I mean, I do argue it, just not right here and now). I'm just arguing that calling out Sanders voters for not helping when you have a shit-ton of voters you admit wouldn't help if the situation was reversed is never going to make them change, it's just going to irritate them and drive them away more. As Coriolanus said, you want those votes you gotta work for that shit.

 

[noshten]

Bernie Sanders is never going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. The man is a disaster waiting to happen in the general election. He would get crushed. The man is not a Democrat despite what he says. Its laughable he wants to be the leader of a party he has never wanted to belong to. I hope he gets crushed in the primary. The sooner he does with his 30% of the base the sooner Hillary can move on to the general. I dare his supporters to pout when he goes down. I dare them to sit out this election. This election is too important for pesky idealism. Not this time. Not after Trump's recent trash.

What a load of tosh, this type of rhetoric is not helping.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would beat Cruz and Trump by a landslide if turnout is high.
Anyone trying to paint the GE in any other way is pushing their own agenda.

 

[BertramCooper]

Scarborough predicts the party will steal the nomination at a brokered convention before they allow Trump to win.

A friend of mine basically agrees with this.

I think it's unlikely. Convention hijinks could completely undermine the GOP's entire primary process. Also, it would virtually guarantee an independent Trump run.

Damned if they do; damned if they don't.

In the end I think they bite the bullet and nominate him. But party support for him will be tepid, at best. Efforts will be spent almost entirely on downticket races.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Most people who have said "I will vote Sanders but not Clinton" are not doing it because Sanders personally lost. If Sanders lost but the presidential candidate was acceptable to them, they'd still vote. They're not doing so not because Sanders lost, but because Clinton isn't acceptable to them. Like, this is exactly the same for both groups of Clinton and Sanders supporters and the fact you don't understand this is baffling. Trying to defend it as okay when your guys refuse to vote a presidential-Sanders it on spurious reasons like "wasn't a Democrat", but paint Sanders people as "fucking disgraceful" when they refuse to vote a presidential-Clinton, is hypocrisy.

I'm not even arguing the notion that more Democrats might support a Clinton-presidency (I mean, I do argue it, just not right here and now). I'm just arguing that calling out Sanders voters for not helping when you have a shit-ton of voters you admit wouldn't help if the situation was reversed is never going to make them change, it's just going to irritate them and drive them away more. As Coriolanus said, you want those votes you gotta work for that shit.

If Sanders voters want to push the country to the left if Hillary becomes the nominee then absolutely their best option is to vote for Hillary and saying they wont do it is actively detrimental to their cause. A large portion of Hillary supporters aren't looking to and might even not want to move the country in anyway near the direction Sanders is proposing. For them the logical decision may very well be not to vote for him. For Sanders supporters not voting for her is counterproductive.

 

[Makai]

Oh shit, Trump gave that speech at the fucking Yorktown. I keep missing all of these candidates.

 

[Coriolanus]

If Sanders voters want to push the country to the left if Hillary becomes the nominee then absolutely their best option is to vote for Hillary and saying they wont do it is actively detrimental to their cause. A large portion of Hillary supporters aren't looking to and might even not want to move the country in anyway near the direction Sanders is proposing. For them the logical decision may very well be not to vote for him. For Sanders supporters not voting for her is counterproductive.

If you say you'll vote for me no matter what happens, then there is no reason whatsoever for me to change my positions.


Yes, push comes to shove, at general election night, not voting for her is counterproductive. UNTIL that moment, however, it is absolutely in their best interest to be as loud as possible about their grievances, and especially so during the primaries.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Yes, I know. I think Bertram's argument about minorities is terrible. What I'm saying is as a separate argument is that a) if you want to vote in the primaries for the most electable candidate, and b) you suppose that more Democrats will refuse to vote Clinton than Sanders and the amount of Republicans and independents will remain constant, then logically c) you should vote for Sanders. If you are rejecting this, then you are rejecting either the premise that more Democrats will refuse to vote Clinton than Sanders or the premise that the amount of Republican/independent voters is constant. Most people here aren't rejecting the last one, they're saying "It's a fucking disgrace because it might lead to Clinton losing", implying they're more worried about the Democratic voter rate than the Republican/independent one. This means there are more Clinton supporters who intend to sit out the election, so railing on at Sanders supporters for something they do less of is inane and hypocritical. The only reason you see them more is because Clinton supporters don't really have to admit they wouldn't vote Sanders because it is highly unlikely he will win.

I wouldn't even call the group of people saying they'd stay home democrats, so I don't factor them into anything. If they turn up to vote for Clinton I'll consider them bonus votes. I think the amount of democrat votes would be consistent between the two candidates, but the amount of Sanders supporter votes would decrease if Clinton is the nominee. But like Coriolanus said, we don't know how large of a group this is or if it is even significant.

I'm not seeing the connection between calling out Sanders supporters who would sit out the election if Clinton is the nominee and Clinton supporters sitting out the election if Sanders is. I haven't seen anyone say they wouldn't vote for Sanders, but I guess that could be because they don't need to right now, like you said. Personally I'd be happy with either. Hell, I'm sure I'd be happy with O'Malley too.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If Sanders voters want to push the country to the left if Hillary becomes the nominee then absolutely their best option is to vote for Hillary and saying they wont do it is actively detrimental to their cause. A large portion of Hillary supporters aren't looking to and might even not want to move the country in anyway near the direction Sanders is proposing. For them the logical decision may very well be not to vote for him. For Sanders supporters not voting for her is counterproductive.

No, the logic chains don't make sense here. Them voting for Clinton in the presidential indicates, in the long run, that the Democratic party doesn't have to pander to the left of the party in the slightest - it can run literally any candidate and get their votes because, after all, they don't have a choice, right, so who gives a toss?

EDIT: Beaten by Coriolanus.

I agree with the very last sentiment of Veritigo_X, though.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

No, the logic chains don't make sense here. Them voting for Clinton in the presidential indicates, in the long run, that the Democratic party doesn't have to pander to the left of the party in the slightest - it can run literally any candidate and get their votes because, after all, they don't have a choice, right, so who gives a toss?

She has been pandering to the left. But she can't pander to the left to the degree that many Sanders supporters seem to want her to without threatening to lose support in the middle.

The nature of political change in this country is extremely incremental and that is a notion that many of them (here on GAF) seem to reject. I haven't seen any accelerationism sentiment from Clinton supporters for example.

 

[Coriolanus]

She has been pandering to the left. But she can't pander to the left to the degree that many Sanders supporters seem to want her to without threatening to lose support in the middle.

Could you support that allegation with data?

Do we know how large the "independent moderate that is legit independent and not an embarassed republican" vote is?

 

[Poodlestrike]

No, the logic chains don't make sense here. Them voting for Clinton in the presidential indicates, in the long run, that the Democratic party doesn't have to pander to the left of the party in the slightest - it can run literally any candidate and get their votes because, after all, they don't have a choice, right, so who gives a toss?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's no colossal divide on policy between Bernie and Hillary. Now, that's largely a result of her moving to the left to compete with Sanders, but still.

Could you support that allegation with data?

Majority of Americans are still center-right, at least in voting habits. Plus, there's a mirror image phenomenon with the Republicans. No reason to expect a hard leftward swerve during the Democratic primaries couldn't hurt like the hard rightward swing during the Republican one does.

 

[Makai]

Listening to Trump's 30 minute interview on Morning Joe. Trump sounds fucking crazy. He invoked WW2 internment as a defense of his statement.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Could you support that allegation with data?

Do we know how large the "independent moderate that is legit independent and not an embarassed republican" vote is?

This, basically. Most Sanders supporters think Sanders can win the general. Inebriated, your argument therefore does not deter them.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Listening to Trump's 30 minute interview on Morning Joe. Trump sounds fucking crazy. He invoked WW2 internment as a defense of his statement.

He did a ton of morning shows today. Here's what he said when asked how he would implement his Muslim travel ban.

@Phil_Mattingly
On how his plan would work, Trump says: A customs agent "would say 'Are you Muslim?'"
And if answer is yes, traveler would be turned away

https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/674212930255257600

 

[NeoXChaos]

What a load of tosh, this type of rhetoric is not helping.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would beat Cruz and Trump by a landslide if turnout is high.
Anyone trying to paint the GE in any other way is pushing their own agenda.

I honestly think Sanders could lose to Cruz and Trump.

 

[Poodlestrike]

He did a ton of morning shows today. Here's what he said when asked how he would implement his Muslim travel ban.



https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/674212930255257600

So we're handling immigration on the honor system now?

Wow, it's somehow both wildly islamaphobic and wildly insecure. Worst of both worlds, well done.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

This, basically. Most Sanders supporters think Sanders can win the general. Inebriated, your argument therefore does not deter them.

Republicans going hard right in the primary has damaged their general election campaigns, I don't know how you could possibly think it isn't true the other way around.

 

[Hopfrog]

So we're handling immigration on the honor system now?

Wow, it's somehow both wildly islamaphobic and wildly insecure. Worst of both worlds, well done.

Customs agent: Are you a terrorist?

Terrorist: .........Yes....wait, I mean no!

Customs agent: Aha! Too late.

 

[Veritigo_X]

So we're handling immigration on the honor system now?

Wow, it's somehow both wildly islamaphobic and wildly insecure. Worst of both worlds, well done.

It reminds me a bit of Jeb's way of vetting Christian Syrian refugees. "You can tell if someone is a Christian." "How?" "You just can. If you can't, err on the side of caution."

 

[Coriolanus]

So we're handling immigration on the honor system now?

Wow, it's somehow both wildly islamaphobic and wildly insecure. Worst of both worlds, well done.

Tbh, it largely already is.

Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide? Have you ever participated in, ordered, or engaged in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings?

Majority of Americans are still center-right, at least in voting habits. Plus, there's a mirror image phenomenon with the Republicans. No reason to expect a hard leftward swerve during the Democratic primaries couldn't hurt like the hard rightward swing during the Republican one does.

No reason to expect those people to come out and vote for you either, as Gore and Kerry showed.

 

[Makai]

This Morning Joe interview is insane. All of you need to watch it.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Let me also be 100% clear in that I will not only vote for Bernie if he becomes the nominee but will also actively campaign for him.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Scarborough predicts the party will steal the nomination at a brokered convention before they allow Trump to win.

Here's a potentially rambling train of thought...

It's been suggested that we don't really have a representative government anymore, that it's more of an oligarchy. If so, wouldn't that be more true among the party that draws most of its power from the upper class already?

So, if the above happens, it'll be a very visible case supporting the notion. The conservative base is already fired up, anti-establishment, and feeling like they haven't been represented. Taking the nomination away from the most popular candidate it going to be like dropping a fuel bomb on a wooden city.

I'm not sure what would happen after that, but it would be weird and ironic if any change came out to our political process because the most racist elements were the most publicly marginalized.

There are a tons of "ifs" in that scenario, but what a crazy turn of events this could end up being.

 

[BertramCooper]

Let me also be 100% clear in that I will not only vote for Bernie if he becomes the nominee but will also actively campaign for him.

Same.

 

[Makai]

I am really salty I didn't know about the Yorktown speech. I could have been the one guy interviewed by CNN that had a different take.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Could you support that allegation with data?

Do we know how large the "independent moderate that is legit independent and not an embarassed republican" vote is?

It doesn't need to be supported by data, it doesn't even need to be true. It only needs to be what the Clinton campaign believes.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Let me also be 100% clear in that I will not only vote for Bernie if he becomes the nominee but will also actively campaign for him.

Likewise.

I'm even planning on voting for him in the primary, to send a message.

But I think Clinton is far, far more electable.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It doesn't need to be supported by data, it doesn't even need to be true. It only needs to be what the Clinton campaign believes.

Well, not but assuming that posters like Inebriated and Bertram would prefer something left of Clinton but are being pragmatic rather than vote for her because of a genuine desire for a moderate Democrat/dislike for stronger leftism, it needs to be true for their decision to vote Clinton to make sense.

 

[Coriolanus]

It doesn't need to be supported by data, it doesn't even need to be true. It only needs to be what the Clinton campaign believes.

Indeed, which is why i'm glad she's got some of Obama's folks over there to remind her of why a realistic approach to these things matters, instead of going into a bubble again.

 

[dramatis]

Well, not but assuming that posters like Inebriated and Bertram would prefer something left of Clinton but are being pragmatic rather than vote for her because of a genuine desire for a moderate Democrat/dislike for stronger leftism, it needs to be true for their decision to vote Clinton to make sense.

Come back when you're not assuming that voters aren't breaking for Bernie because they don't know about him, and then we'll talk.

They could just be picking a more capable, more accomplished, and ceiling-breaking candidate over a just middling one.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Come back when you're not assuming that voters aren't breaking for Bernie because they don't know about him, and then we'll talk.

They could just be picking a more capable, more accomplished, and ceiling-breaking candidate over a just middling one.

If this were true, then Bernie's supported/not supported ratios among people who know who he is would be poor - they're not. This is no assumption, we literally have the data.

 

[Coriolanus]

Come back when you're not assuming that voters aren't breaking for Bernie because they don't know about him, and then we'll talk.

... you really should read what he has posted with a bit more care.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Well, not but assuming that posters like Inebriated and Bertram would prefer something left of Clinton but are being pragmatic rather than vote for her because of a genuine desire for a moderate Democrat/dislike for stronger leftism, it needs to be true for their decision to vote Clinton to make sense.

If it can't be proven, then it only needs to be that they believe it to be the most likely case.

It's a strategy based on prevailing wisdom on the subject. It might be wrong, but it's commonly believed and nobody has advanced an argument against it. If you want to convince them that common wisdom is wrong, it's up to you as Bernie supporter and person arguing against the commonly-held belief to make the case.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If it can't be proven, then it only needs to be that they believe it to be the most likely case.

It's a strategy based on prevailing wisdom on the subject. It might be wrong, but it's commonly believed and nobody has advanced an argument against it.

EDIT: Scratch that first response, I misread this post.

Yes, sure, it can't really be proven either way without being able to run two separate worlds to test both possibilities, but I do think there's sufficient evidence to strongly doubt it, which is what I frequently post about.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

No, I'm not saying it makes no sense for the Clinton campaign to advance this argument. It makes perfect sense, if she can sell Sanders is unelectable, then she gets free votes without actually having to do any policy work. I'm saying that the argument itself makes no sense - Sanders is electable in the general, and more so than Clinton.

What's the case for this?

And I'm saying even people who like Bernie more than Hilary (like me) are going with the common wisdom that there are more potential voters in the middle than to the left. You'll have to do the work if you want to change minds, not just assert things.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What's the case for this?

And I'm saying even people who like Bernie more than Hilary (like me) are going with the common wisdom that there are more potential voters in the middle than to the left. You'll have to do the work if you want to change minds, not just assert things.

I've posted stuff on this in the various other Sanders threads scattered around the site, but I suppose I can make a mega-post here. Give me a mo to type it all up.

 

[dramatis]

If this were true, then Bernie's supported/not supported ratios among people who know who he is would be poor - they're not. This is no assumption, we literally have the data.

... you really should read what he has posted with a bit more care.

Hardly. Crab talks about the ratios, but in the end, after some 15 million people watched the first debate and learned about Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton's numbers shot up.

Ultimately all of us are armchair politicking anyway, Crab especially because he's not American. That's not to say he can't have reasoned arguments, but he also tends to downplay a lot of the conservative-ness of the USA, because it's unfathomable to him.

Besides, it's true that Hillary is easily the superior candidate in all the respects of capability and accomplishment, and her status as a woman makes her more exceptional than Bernie Sanders. Voters could be picking her for any of the above reasons, just as they could also be picking Bernie because they are economically in favor of the poor but like guns, don't think a woman should be president, or are racist.

Her campaign doesn't need to believe something to side with it. A campaign with Obama's machine plus Clinton connections? They probably have the data to prove it. We don't.

 

[Coriolanus]

Her campaign doesn't need to believe something to side with it. A campaign with Obama's machine plus Clinton connections? They probably have the data to prove it. We don't.

Indeed. Which is most likely why she's choosing to pander to the left.

 

[BertramCooper]

Another discussion on the electability of a largely unvetted, self-declared socialist in a U.S. presidential election?

Should be fun.