Not well over the top. Just barely over the top by the end. If trends hold as well as Bernie staying in. Not that it matters as supers would do it easily, and if there were no supers than she would do it easily.
Super Tuesday 4. I'm really feeling (The After Bern) March 22, 26 contests
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
Why are you so hung up on the word free? The word 'free' is being used in a relative sense, where it's rolled into the taxes you pay. You have no problem with half of your federal taxes being wasted on our military, subsidizing poorly educated youth into "Free" education following years of taxpayer-funded service, so why would you have a problem with your federal taxes subsidizing "free" education for people who don't sign up for this arbitrary additional taxpayer expenditure?
This whole notion that people who agree with the idea of "free" institutions are oblivious to how money works is condescending, and frankly the dumbest, bottom-of-the-barrel Republican talking point.
You also slyly evaded answering to "the establishment"'s proposal of subsidizing 2 years of college, nice work. How we gun' pay fer dat, huh? Gosh durned millenials I tells ya wut, back in my day...
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Shes going to go into the convention, or at least its very likely, with more pledged delegates and supers saying that they are going to vote for her, but the amount of pledged delegates she will have won't put her over the top officially until the supers are counted at the convention.
Side note, I've never thought the supers would change over to support him. Establishment likes and want Clinton.
Edit: Both Nate Silver and CNN were talking last night about how she likely won't have the pledged delegates to "wrap it up" before the convention. Thats how the Dem primary was structured, so the supers are who put the nominee over the top.
...stuck in the past?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yeah it's not like you have huge debt or anything.
We've already established you're not good with figures
It is not like healthcare and education are "free" now.
You fundamentally don't understand the problem.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Tesseract
Banned
He didn't ignore the South, he certainly doesn't consider it his firewall
eBay Huckster
Member
also maybe next time don't hire the consultant who has only ever worked for one presidential campaign that won the popular vote (out of seven attempts)
(devine's somehow less successful than dick morris)
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
All you have to do is read between the lines to glean the tasty nuggets of truth contained within.
Just put him on ignore. His signal/noise ratio is 0.
Nah, we were ready. Bernie wasn't.
Vox had an article on this earlier this week. As many (many, many) Sanders supporters have noted, African-Americans generally support the kind of social economic policies that Bernie Sanders suggests. They know that we need to fight the inherent redistribution of wealth towards the 1%.
But, in the main, they simply don't support Bernie Sanders, because he's done an exceptionally poor job of framing his policies in an intersectional manner that acknowledges racial justice and institutionalized racism as issues that must be addressed outside of, and as part of, economic policies.
The Obama coalition is an intersectional coalition. We've seen a lot of old white men who said they knew what was best for us and disregarded or explained away our opinions.
If there were a candidate running today that was also an angry socialist, but discarded the populist, protectionist aspects of Sanders's platform and replaced that with as good an engagement with intersectionality as Clinton has demonstrated (and it's not like she's super great at this either), they would be winning the primary by huge numbers.
Sanders just isn't the right candidate for the Democratic Party.
Even if you going to lose you don't let your foe run up the score.
Worse thing you can say about Hillary's manager is that he believes in UFOs.
I think Sanders and his team know that this wasn't likely going to end with him being the nominee, so I'm not sure he was going to attract anyone who could have helped him get the nomination.
If I'm not mistaken Trump would of had to have a clean sweep to not be contested. Obviously, he'll end up with the majority of delegates, but will the GOP contest anyway? If they push for another candidate like Cruz or even introduced a new one they would lose regardless. If they were smart they would give the nomination to Trump and take the loss. As of now they are still in control. No reason to destroy your party unless you are ignorant.
This is how I feel as well. If/when Trump is the clear popular favorite going into the convention, pivoting and electing a different candidate will make the GOP look slimier than Ted Cruz.
They can either elect Trump, lose, and try to wrangle his follower base into something constructive, or they can elect someone else, lose, and split the party further.
Who?
1) Tesseract is a gem
2) Vox fishes for clicks by kicking Bernie's nuts as often as possible
3) Bernie's speeches are admittedly a little clunky, but I really don't know how you could "intersect" his stances on race and economics more smoothly than he does in his stump speeches. And if you bear with him beyond his "millionayahs and billionayahs" in debates, he usually brings it back around to answer the question asked, although GAF commentary often goes off the rails and ignores half of his answers.
eBay Huckster
Member
still, they could've hired literally anyone else not already in the clinton camp who wasn't that much of a career loser here
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I think the idea is that Bernie is going back to the Senate when this is over, and if he wants the same levels of support he's used to from the Democrats (who alone decide that he can caucus with them), he's got to watch the negativity. It's only because he caucuses with the Dems that he's on committees and such.
It's some crazy game theory that'll save the GOP. If they aren't careful, Trump 2.0 is gonna run in 2020, and they'll be right back here. Whatever they do, they have to squash the Tea Party wing here and now. I think they do that by:
Step 1: Give Trump the nomination. This lets the Tea Party wing have their candidate.
Step 2: Support Trump the whole way. This lets the TP know that he wasn't stabbed in the back during the GE.
Step 3: Trump gets crushed in November. This is highly likely (name one state on Obama's 2012 map that flips), so it delivers the death blow to TP ideology.
Step 4: Every top Republican party official resigns, along with most of the old blood (so anyone older in states that could be up for grabs). This is crucial. After supporting Trump, everyone in the party who is immediately identified with the party will be connected with a fascist racist, and their names will be Mudd forever. The GOP has got to then establish fresh candidates without any of the TP baggage.
So steps 1-3 shut up the Tea Party, and step 4 attempts to court the demographics that steps 1-3 will burn. It's the only thing I (as a Democrat) can think of that would save their party right now.
I mean, if your response is just "nope, Bernie is perfect the way he is," then enjoy winning the ten whitest states in the Union!*
The reality, again, is that the data bears out that people of color don't support Bernie. I'm trying to explain why. I've been trying to explain why Bernie's positions on race are terrible for literally half a year now! I can understand why Bernie supporters don't want to know or accept it, but there's not a lot I can do about that.
It's not about stump speeches, it's about a fundamental conception of American politics that doesn't feed the worst impulses of white college kids by reducing every problem to a class issue. Don't "intersect" your stances on race and economics. Have a stance on race that isn't about economics. "Intersect" your economic stance with race.
* Just kidding, Bernie lost Iowa (92.5%). But he sure won Vermont (95.2%), Idaho (93.7%) and Utah (91.6%)!
boiled goose
good with gravy
I agree with some of the Bernie critiques, but he has improved during the campaign.
However, I almost completely disagree with the idea that somehow Clinton is better. Other than rhetoric, and based on what has actually happened in the past 8 years I just don't see how Clinton will ultimately be better at addressing systematic inequality, be it racial or economic.
This reads to me as if you watched Bernie's first speech and haven't followed the campaign since.
Again, I understand some of the issues with Bernie's appeal. I get it. What I don't get is Clinton then being 50 point margin better in these issues. Just not buying it.
To me, it points to something else limiting Sanders appeal to older, more conservative African American democrats.
Maybe it is campaign strategy, Clinton getting her message out better, or something else.
But the message itself? Again not buying it.
If I'm following you correctly....are you claiming that Bernie supporters will have the same stance on issues into their 30's? If so, a good chunk of Bernie supporters are college students and people in their early 20's the last time I checked. The world is different at that age and once more responsibilities start piling on the more you begin to shift. Once you have a career and family under way you begin to worry a lot more about whats best for you and your family financially. Bernie would of been the ideal candidate for me if it wasn't for his tax plan.
It won't really matter.
She'll win a majority of the pledged delegate by June 5. Adding in superdelegates, the media will project Clinton will be the presumptive nominee. She'll likely have a margin of 350-400 pledged delegates by then and a total delegate margin of 800+. Sanders will have no claim to the nomination regardless of what the polls say about his electability.
No one can address systematic inequality. At least not in any timescale smaller than a few decades. Or with a violent overthrow of the system. Don't believe anyone that says that four or eight years are enough to drastically change a democracy. At least if it must remain a democracy.
The idiots in my country voted for people promising radical change. You know what changed with them in power? Nothing.
Oh, you mean Triggeract?
Tesseract
Banned
boiled goose
good with gravy
You are right that people get more conservative as they get older and accrue more wealth.
The problem is that economic mobility is the lowest it has been in decades and never before have young people had as much debt. They are not buying houses, they are not buying cars, they are not having kids.
Bernie would have been been your candidate if it wasn't for this tax plan huh?
Hey, I am happy the status quo is working well enough for you. I can't judge you for prioritizing your family. If it starts working well enough for all these people then that is good. If " a Bernie" is not needed, then that is good.
I just don't think that will happen.
Sure.
One problem is that the USA is a democracy in name only, not in practice.
Studies show that our "representative democracy" is not really representing constituents, but donors.
There it is <3
RustyNails
Member
Problem with Bernie is that he sincerely believes that the root of all problems in America is income inequality. That's a strong view to have, and many agree with his views. I do think making income more leveled will ease many problems including the ones AA's face. But income inequality does not account for black kids getting shot by cops or thrown around on the ground or back of the van. That's a problem that blacks have had since...hundreds of years in America? The authority has fucked the AA communities time and again. That's not going to be solved by taxing the 1% more. One stance I like about Bernie's is making the cops look more like the communities they're policing: more diversity. But still that is a cosmetic change that does not fix inherent problems that exist with "authority", not just cops and prosecutors but also education system and the larger corporate private sector. He should be able to acknowledge that wealth disparity will not solve every problem, and neither does freeing majority of the prison population. His ideas are so broad based and yes or no in nature that they do not appeal to minorities looking for specific answers. Besides, he should have started courting the black vote long time ago, listening to the problems communites face. Even Obama, as a black man, did not take the black vote for granted or ignored it. He traveled to deep south building networks and visiting barbershops, civic centers and community events long before he launched his campaign. That way he was able to address problems and incidents that the black communities were facing. Of course it helped that he was from Chicago south side but still, he never tiptoed around the issues. He became a household name by the time primaries started rolling.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
To be frank, SC really blasted him. His campaign went with his record on civil rights, but then that opened up a bunch of civil rights leaders (including some from Vermont) who could then talk about how little they'd ever seen Bernie doing stuff. He's just always been this guy from one of (if not) the whitest states in the country who never stomped around the country in these communities. Here in MS, Democrats (particularly black Democrats) don't care for liberals from places like Burlington and Seattle talking about ideology in the country. It fundamentally misreads the living situations of most black people in this country (who overwhelmingly live in the South).
Bernie's campaign was always DOA with minorities because of who he is. He's an old white guy, from a white, liberal state, talking about Wall Street and billionaires. In states where there aren't all-white people, where states break over 80% for the right, where you can count the millionaires on one hand (let alone the billionaires), his message might as well apply to the moon.
boiled goose
good with gravy
"Problem with Bernie is that he sincerely believes that the root of all problems in America is income inequality."
People keep saying this in this thread when as someone who is closely following all candidates it is patently clear to me that it is not true. So the fact that so many keep saying it point to something that went wrong with Bernie regarding his messaging.
Regarding the second part, I agree. He failed reaching out there. I think this might be the problem, not the message itself.
Remember that Bernie was not really planning to run for president. He only ran because there was no real progressive challenge to Clinton.
lastflowers
Banned
Read his fucking site No one wants to spoon feed you information you so clearly do not want. Read the recent new Yorker article. Read some of Robert Reich's works. Read some of Chomsky's criticisms. Bernie isnt representing one singular block of voters, he's representing a subset of democrats who have been disillusioned with the party's actions. Your hand wave dismissel is hilariously naïve.
It's fine to disagree with them, or you might not like their writings on government/history/etc, but to broadly paint all youth support for Bernie as 'Free stuff' is woefully hilarious at best and completely intellectually dishonest on average.
That's a waste of a perfectly good Vice President slot. The last thing Hillary needs in the VP position is a angry 74 year old man from a non-swing state who hates the party he'd be representing enough to sue them. She needs someone equally principled, but younger and far less one-dimensional (shouting 'something something oligarchy' all day isn't enough to be an effective leader).
Reading my Facebook feed today had been quite the adventure. Apparently Utah and Idaho have 'reignited' Bernie's campaign and electoral victory is now imminent, and all the votes in Arizona should be thrown out because reasons. Reality says otherwise.
Square2015
Member
Do we have a delegate count result from last night yet?
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Well at this point we are arguing semantics. GWB hurting his own party in 2008 is a universally accepted fact. Candidates tried to distance themselves from him. Whatever terminology you wanna use, you can at least see what I am saying.
Yes, 8 years of Obama DOES spur Reepublican turnout. The sentiment against him coming from their side is well documented.
Okay.
I mean, there's nothing to discuss here. I outlined my thought process and evidence, you said "nope, don't believe it." You don't actually have evidence or a theory of your own, you just can't believe that people don't think Bernie is good on an intersectional level.
That seems fine to me! But I'm pretty sure I'm right, and I'm pretty sure all the people of color trying to explain why Bernie is not being successful among people of color are saying the same thing. And I'm pretty sure all the people disagreeing are just saying "I dunno, I just don't believe that Bernie is bad on racial issues." Just like you!
Extrapolating primary voting numbers to the general election is beyond pointless and, if anything, probably has a negative correlation with general election success.
Hillary/Obama was both the most competitive primary in a generation and the most "historic" primary (ie. first black/woman nominee, let alone president) in, well, probably ever.
Hillary/Obama was both the most competitive primary in a generation and the most "historic" primary (ie. first black/woman nominee, let alone president) in, well, probably ever.
legacyzero
Banned
Hmmm. Something fishy going on with the Arizona primary? Yaaay voter supression!
http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/
That interview with the county recorder is a real treat
http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/
That interview with the county recorder is a real treat
Jesus Christ LOL
excelsiorlef
Member
legacyzero
Banned
Sorry, I dont know about the source. Theres video evidence, tweets, etc.
Try reading it. Compelling information.
lastflowers
Banned
Because winning isn't necessarily the only way he can impact the electorate and the democratic party. Donations help keep him spreading his message.
He's correct in that some are naïve and think he will win, which is virtually guaranteed and has only been getting slimmer and slimmer each passing state-primary. However, his assumption that the only reason people donate is purely to win is a naïve assumption. Sometimes people take focus on a small sliver (Reddit in this case because it's wildly popular) and extract it out to the entire electorate base. It isn't, and shouldn't be assumed so. Do we have numbers on the age distribution of his donors?
OuterLimits
Member
Trump still has a decent chance to get 1237. If he doesn't, he likely be so close to the number that it would cause a political civil war if they try and give it to someone with way less delegates.(Or bring in Romney/Ryan even)
Keep in mind Trump has some very friendly states left. New York, Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland and West Virginia. He could also do well in Wisconsin and California although it will be harder for him.
Basically most of the friendly Cruz states have voted. Now we have a bunch of NE states where Cruz has so far done terribly. Kasich may be more a threat in a few states.
So Trump will likely get close to the magic number. Either way, he will be way ahead of 2nd place most likely.
excelsiorlef
Member
I did hence why I said maybe there is maybe there isn't.
The source presents that as why Clinton won though
Also they dangerously teeter on accusing her and the DNC of being behind it, something the comments have no issue running with. So yeah.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Weren't the issues in Arizona primarily in areas where minorities were voting?
Wouldn't that actually help Sanders more than Clinton?
- Status