Then she should be okay with losing then. Its one thing to adapt and change, its another thing to change your message like that. People already have an issue with her changing her views for political reasons already as it is.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Then she should be okay with losing then. Its one thing to adapt and change, its another thing to change your message like that. People already have an issue with her changing her views for political reasons already as it is.
benicillin
Banned
Whenever Hilary and Bernie argue about Obama they both completely lose me, I think it's the dumbest thing ever. Hilary tries to paint Bernie like he's been out there picketing the White House ever since Obama got into office and Bernie makes poorly phrased insinuations that Hilary is wielding Obama like some kind of shield. They should both just drop it and move on to stuff that actually matters because it isn't a good look for either of them.
I mean, if Bernie can't give a more attractive pitch than Obama 2.0 he should be fine losing as well.
It really depends. Like whether or not the attacks show a underlying weakness when it comes to serving the needs of minorities, or if it's just optics that should mean nothing anyways.
Why do you say that? Everything I've seen suggests he has been doing fine. I saw today that he's spent twice as much on TV ads as Hillary. Anecdotal and all but I've definitely seen and heard more from him than Hillary and my dad whose always been a registered Republican asked me the other day why Bernie keeps sending him mail.
Macho Madness
Member
Barney Frank on Bernie Sanders, 25 years ago:
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Aka why I don't support sandersBarney Frank on Bernie Sanders, 25 years ago:
shinra-bansho
Member
@Clyburn Sellout.
@Clyburn sold his race
@Clyburn Your hear has always been with Hillary because u and your fellow dems love LIARS
lol
@Clyburn sold his race
@Clyburn Your hear has always been with Hillary because u and your fellow dems love LIARS
lol
Three Rubio-related ads in a row on my television here in SC. One criticizing his work with Democrats, one comparing him to Obama in a negative way (paid for by Right to Rise!), and one with our dear governor talking about how much she just looooves Marco. She smells a VP pick.
Macho Madness
Member
Yikes. I'm seeing people doing all they can to discredit him because he said that her experience is a reason he supports her. "bu-bu-bu-bu you didn't support McCain in 08!!"
Someone on twitter asking why a Democrat did not support McCain over Obama.
Also, shit that's really gross like "he's sold out his race" said by white people.
Coriolanus
Banned
I'm sure we can dig up asshattery from every single person running if we willing to dig back 25 years ¯\_(ツ
_/¯The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm sure we can dig up asshattery from every single person running if we willing to dig back 25 years ¯\_(ツ
Yes. They already have for Clinton
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Here's the demographic breakdown of MA in 2008:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/MA.html
Clinton won white people by 18 points in 2008. Bernie will almost certainly win whites this time around. She also won families with income under $50,000 and still won if you expand that to $100,000. Again, safe territory for Bernie. She also won independents by 12 points. Bernie will likely win independents by an even wider margin. She also won among voters who decided who to support on the day of voting by 20 points. Again, that's Bernie's territory this time around. She even won voters 18-29 by 1 point. She'll likely lose that group by at least 40 points this time around.
All in all, the demographic groups that propelled Hillary to victory in '08 largely swing toward Bernie this time around. It's not hard to believe he'll win it.
The whole goal seems to be to make Bernie trip up and say something that could be construed as negative towards minorities rather than something with substance.
I have no problem with him being pressed on minority issues though, this is just the way that i've seen it been.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
She murdered the Clinton Initiative because Benghazi's emails didn't have whitewater dirt on his shoes.
I love when people go back to the Clinton's college days for dirt... It's so petty isn't it?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Does Nevada announce vote totals or does it withhold them like Iowa does?
nocturnalis
Member
As a black person, it doesn't really bother me that Clinton is invoking Obama's name because:
- Bernie's entire campaign is rooted in disestablishmentarianism, so own it when establishment Democrats don't want to fuck with you.
- They worked together, so clearly he trust her counsel on issues.
- Obama dragged Hillary's ass out as a distraction during the Benghazi terrorist attacks in 2012 and she became the Benghazi she-devil because of it.
- Obama must hate Bernie for saying he's should be primaried after Congress was being dickish and Sanders as a member of Congress since the early '90's should have understood and defended him, so Obama must be laughing his ass off
Morgan Freeman is apparently going to be on CNN in two hours with everyone's favorite host, Don Lemon. It looks like Morgan endorsed Hillary, and although I can't find the information anywhere, I assume this means Hillary paid him little or nothing for the ad.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/morgan-freeman-hillary-clinton-ad/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/morgan-freeman-hillary-clinton-ad/
Macho Madness
Member
I think it'll just be delegate totals since there's no actual voting.
That's part of the problem. He shouldn't be sending Republicans mail in a closed caucus.
Also: an AP reporter
Since when are we coming after the very legitimate concept of intersectionality?!
Mhmm. I have him winning it by about 10%, which is alright for him I guess, but with Clinton at 16 superdelegates in Massachusetts to Sanders' 1, she'll come leave the state that night with more delegates than him. On top of the huge delegate leads she'll be picking up in the South...
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
If I recall, though, Iowa announces the popular vote totals (even though it's not technically a "vote" I guess) in August, so they do seem to keep track of how many people supported which candidate in each precinct. I'm just wondering if NV does the same thing, or if they release the vote totals right away or not at all.
I don't believe we'll ever get official numbers, just unofficial ones. For example, turnout in 2008 was generally believed to be around 120k. I've only ever seen that number through the grapevine, I can't find an official source that states it. The state Democratic Party is looking at 70k for tomorrow.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
The supers can jump ship any time they want. Who they support now is largely meaningless until one candidate starts pulling away from the other with regular ol' delegates. If the supers seal the nomination for Hillary even if Bernie wins more regular delegates, I imagine the democratic party will go up in flames worse than the GOP has been.
Holmes said:
Gracias. 70k seems low.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
Donald Trump is going to win the South Carolina Republican by primary whether he likes it or not. By A LOT.
I won't deny its possible, I would just like to see more than one poll that backs it up.
Support for Bernie Sanders will plunge after the Right launches a barrage of ads against him...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/berned-up
Basically what many people here have been saying...Clinton has been handling him with kid gloves...
Republicans have been urging their voters to vote in Democratic primaries in order to make Sanders the nominee because they know they can destroy him...
Imagine a Trump vs Sanders election
a self made billionaire, the poster boy of capitalism vs an old pinko soviet style communist that wants to transform the U.S. into a socialist hell hole like cuba and Venezuela
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/berned-up
Basically what many people here have been saying...Clinton has been handling him with kid gloves...
Republicans have been urging their voters to vote in Democratic primaries in order to make Sanders the nominee because they know they can destroy him...
Imagine a Trump vs Sanders election
a self made billionaire, the poster boy of capitalism vs an old pinko soviet style communist that wants to transform the U.S. into a socialist hell hole like cuba and Venezuela
"Freeman was also spotted getting dinner with President Barack Obama and actor Tom Hanks in Washington on Wednesday."
Dang, you even get to have personal dinners with the President when you're famous in Hollywood?
Macho Madness
Member
shinra-bansho
Member
FWIW, I'm not actually sure an official count is released for the IA caucuses either? At least I can't find it on the Sec State site where other totals data seems to be.
If Eva can get dinner, then the voice of God shouldn't be a surprise.
Well, it's from that dumb Politico insider thing so it's probably crap, but:
But I guess coupled with the thing telling people to caucus on Monday being sent out, makes it a little more credible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/u...e-help-obama-plots-life-after-presidency.html
If Eva can get dinner, then the voice of God shouldn't be a surprise.
I know they can switch support, but it builds a narrative right now. Clinton comes out of Super Tuesday with a 100-ish pledged delegate lead? With supers, that's now about a 500-550 lead, and in states that Sanders wins, he can't even pull away with more delegates. That sets the narrative that her delegate lead is insurmountable.
It does, but it's probably still up compared to 2004. 2008 was just really competitive, and Dem turnout has been down in Iowa and New Hampshire compared to 2008, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that turnout will be lower in Nevada too.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
What's the 2016 equivalent of a word like Hopium?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
You say this as if Donald Trump does not have the absolute highest unfavorable numbers of any candidate ever.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
True, I guess it depends on what Hillary's delegate lead looks like after Super Tuesday. In Sanders' defense, something like 5 of Bernie's most difficult states (Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee) all vote on Super Tuesday. It wouldn't be surprising to see the pledged delegate lead start to narrow again in the states that follow.
I've thought this to be the case after reports of Sanders' campaign calling Republicans to caucus for him. I think Clinton is up more among Democrats than we're giving her credit, and her and her team are working hard to make sure they turnout, and Sanders needs to make that up somehow.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm really pissed at myself for missing the registration deadline here in Colorado because I wasn't paying attention. Spoiled by Minnesota's general open voting philosophies
The thing is that after that, there's Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi (Sanders will do good in Maine, and probably in Kansas and Nebraska but it'll be offset and then some by Michigan, Mississippi and Louisiana), and on March 15th, there's Florida, North Carolina and Missouri, as well as Illinois and Ohio where Sanders could be competitive but will probably still lose anyway. She expands her lead, and probably more supers come out for her. The next states to come along are all small, and too far and few in between until the end of April where we get more big batches (New York, then Pennsylvania, Maryland, Deleware, Rhode Island and Connecticut) that it'll probably be over by then anyway.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I expect that they'll be volleying wins between each other for quite a while after Super Tuesday. I think Bernie is in until April 26th assuming he can win Michigan, Missouri, Illinois and Ohio, or at least 3 of those 4. He probably has a small chance in NC too. His performance in those states will likely determine if this is still a race by April 26th when Bernie could potentially win 5/5 and drag this out all the way to California, or if it's all but wrapped up by then and the 26th is superfluous.
God what a mess
Cesare Borgia
Banned
A big fat mess.
Barney Frank on Bernie Sanders, 25 years ago:
God damn. I assume he's not like this anymore? That's like the socialist Ted Cruz right there.
shinra-bansho
Member
So I ended up reading what seems like a relatively balanced easy-to-digest primer on Sanders approach to Wall St.
And while I get that issues pages and speeches aren't necessarily exhaustive it sort of left me wondering why, for someone who's campaigning on the business model of Wall St being fraud - it being the central tenet of his campaign, Sanders' actual policy towards Wall St reform seem, for lack of a better word, lacklustre in actually addressing many of the problems or risk factors.
While acknowledging there's some potential benefit to the overarching plank of "breaking things up." The entire premise seems to largely be that 1) smaller is always better and inherently eliminates risk and 2) that separating commercial and investment banking will eliminate risk and therefore solve the problems that exist? It might to a limited degree, a degree of ring-fencing has occurred elsewhere, it also can be performed with current rules, but it really doesn't seem like it's going to be a holistic fix.
Clinton at least mentions non-banking financial institutions. But, from memory I don't see either talking about, for example, capital requirements or improving the actual regulatory agencies.
And while I get that issues pages and speeches aren't necessarily exhaustive it sort of left me wondering why, for someone who's campaigning on the business model of Wall St being fraud - it being the central tenet of his campaign, Sanders' actual policy towards Wall St reform seem, for lack of a better word, lacklustre in actually addressing many of the problems or risk factors.
While acknowledging there's some potential benefit to the overarching plank of "breaking things up." The entire premise seems to largely be that 1) smaller is always better and inherently eliminates risk and 2) that separating commercial and investment banking will eliminate risk and therefore solve the problems that exist? It might to a limited degree, a degree of ring-fencing has occurred elsewhere, it also can be performed with current rules, but it really doesn't seem like it's going to be a holistic fix.
Clinton at least mentions non-banking financial institutions. But, from memory I don't see either talking about, for example, capital requirements or improving the actual regulatory agencies.
He voted for the same major legislation.
And ignored minority advocacy groups in his state.
Glass houses.
SenorArdilla
Member
I'm not particularly keen on bipartisanship mostly because the GOP have been very obstructionist.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
He can't make deals.
I still think the funniest Jeb quote this week has been, "If you don't end up voting for me, please pray for me and my family."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked