• 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 |OT2| we love the poorly educated

Status
Not open for further replies.
He absolutely will. Remember March 2008? The 'kitchen sink'? There will be plenty of time between Sanders' concession and the GE for a reconciliation (which will no doubt include a prime speaking slot at the convention).

Clinton was a well-established team player who wouldn't jeopardize future presidential runs for something petty.

Sanders won't do something disastrous like endorse Jill Stein or run third party but after this run I bet he's going to wash his hands of the Democrats for rest of the cycle.
 

PBY

Banned
1394606700476.gif
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Why do people even bother attacking him?
 
New poll from Michigan:

Hillary 61
Bernie 33

Bernie leads among 18-39 year olds 58/39
Hillary leads every other age group.

She leads women 71/26
Among AA voters 84/13.

Guess Northern AAs aren't feeling the Bern either.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/MitchellFOX2DetroitMIPollDEM3216.pdf

Some context here...

Every time that Hillary was won over AA voters by these margins, it's also been when she's had double digit leads overall.

I'd like to see her hold those margins for AA voters in states where she isn't leading by that much, or at all.

Spoiler:
It ain't gonna happen.

And seeing as there ARE Northern states where she isn't expected to have huge leads, I don't think your statement holds water in the slightest.
 

Drek

Member
Let me break down the two pieces of bullshit in this post:


These is a nonsensical criticism for a couple reasons. One, in history doesn't even count inflation. Two, in history doesn't even reflect what was the second closest one was. Three, you don't even consider where the money comes from. Four, was this before or after Citizens United and other legislation that allowed for more money to be spent? And five, the fact he won a campaign where he spent less money than his candidate is rare and doesn't take away from his message.
He won because he was the congressman from a state with an at-large congressional seat, the incumbent retired, Sanders as a state-wide elected Congressman was already entrenched in state politics, and had all the support in the world including the Democrats not running a candidate and Schumer making it real damn clear that if anyone tried the DNC would crush them, including letting Sanders win the Democratic nom then decline to completely block opposition.

His opponent was entirely self-financed, so on the scale "all interest group money" to "no interest group money" I'm pretty sure Sanders loses pretty massively. Sanders' largest donors list was headlined by a plantiff's law firm named Baron and Budd, one of the largest law firms in the U.S. that specialize in environment focused class action law suits. So as "special interest" as it gets.

It was in 2005, so Citizen's United was two years away, no PACs making up a large hidden advantage for the opposition. Sanders, effectively the incumbent, spent nearly as much as his Republican opponent in a blue state where Sanders was an established name in the game.

The VA has been a problem for decades, including when Bill Clinton was president. He's not personally responsible for it. Saying so is only less wrong than blaming Obama.

It had been worse than this beforehand.
So your rebuttal is a whataboutism pertaining to a case of fraud and neglect that occured DIRECTLY under Sanders' watch, that Sanders was advised of, and that people within the room have since said Sanders was in complete denial over as he simply couldn't fathom gov't ran healthcare having any problems?

See, this is the real problem with Bernie Bros. You can't tell reality from the "revolution" narrative you've build for yourself. I'm sorry that you came of age a little too late to be part of the real political revolution that occurred in 2008 when a black junior senator with an funny name came out of nowhere and changed the political landscape. That did happen however and the real revolution is already eight years in. Obama has delivered for this country. Clinton is the layup next step to keep the POTUS and SCOTUS in reasonable and pragmatic hands until the demographics of the nation shift that last step further to usher in a second progressive wave (the first being FDR's New Deal). The future is bright, stop whining because you didn't have a hand in setting the table and because you can't have everything right now. You want it sooner? Vote in the goddamn mid-terms. Push for quality local candidates. Do things that actually help, not run down quality candidates because they're "the establishment" and do nothing of positive effect.
 

Oltsu

Banned
Trump really is a natural. He doesn't even have to try and his opponents get stumped.

The begging angle is fantastic against mitt
 

Holmes

Member
Some context here...

Every time that Hillary was won over AA voters by these margins, it's also been when she's had double digit leads overall.

I'd like to see her hold those margins for AA voters in states where she isn't leading by that much, or at all.

Spoiler:
It ain't gonna happen.

And seeing as there ARE Northern states where she isn't expected to have huge leads, I don't think your statement holds water in the slightest.
It's not because she's leading by double digits that the AA vote is so lopsided. It's because the AA vote is so lopsided that she's leading by double digits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom