Support NeoGAF

[besada]

I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. I don't have that much actually against her. I mean, I think she has very little in the way of actual personal values, relying rather on what's expedient and popular. I think she finds lying easy and productive, to the extent that she sometimes lies for no real need. I think she's altogether too tightly coupled with moneyed interests.

Of course, most of that is true of every politician, give or take a bit.

I do think she is a remarkably gifted politician. She tells the right lies, usually, and she shifts in the right direction, usually. She learned campaigning with one of the masters, so I'm not surprised at all that she's good at it. I think she'd probably get more done in office than Bernie, who has a tendency towards all or nothing rhetoric, but I suspect at least half of what she got done wouldn't be so great.

I plan on voting for Bernie in the primaries, with little expectation that he'll win. I'll vote for whoever wins the primary, and not be particularly upset. I can think of a lot worse than Hillary for President. Jim Webb would have been worse, certainly. Any of the Republicans running are a thousand times worse.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I mean if you're looking for someone to hold Wall Street accountable, these aren't the people. For quite a few Americans, financial inequality is an enormous issue, and Wall Street getting off scott free for destroying the economy is hugely emblematic of that.

The point I'm trying to make is that many people's personal dislike of Clinton and admiration of Obama make them overlook the fact that both are taking the same money from the same people. If you're all about "fuck corporations" then at least be consistent about it and not just basing it on your personal feelings about someone.

 

[timetokill]

When I see the corporate talk, I at least hope people are not being hypocritical about it and ignoring Obama's campaign contributions.

I'm not. Obama is a corporate tool as well.

The issues of financial inequality and the corporate classes being above the law as well as completely controlling politics is the biggest issue facing America today. Hillary sure as hell isn't going to fix that problem, because she's a part of it.

 

[zero shift]

When I see the corporate talk, I at least hope people are not being hypocritical about it and ignoring Obama's campaign contributions. Now I know some far left ideologues consider Obama a sellout shill as well, but it seems like the numbers don't add up. In summary, don't be a hypocrite.


That must be why their policies overlap on 95% of issues right? Out of all the valid reasons to bring up why you support Sanders, you come up with total bullshit.

Most Bernie supporters dislike Obama so your point is moot.

 

[TheSeks]

Because there is not much to be enthusiastic about.

He's right, you know?

 

[sprsk]

https://t.co/uXZ3DxO7M6

 

[To Far Away Times]

Unfortunately I won't be able to support anyone who voted for the War on Iraq.

I'll just do a write in for Bernie when the general election comes.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Unfortunately I won't be able to support anyone who voted for the War on Iraq.

I'll just do a write in for Bernie when the general election comes.

Only one person didn't vote for Iraq, Bernie. But if you're going to make yourself look like a fool and do a meaningless write in go ahead. You're only helping hand over the presidency to someone who will undo all the progress accomplished over the last 8 years.

 

[jackissocool]

The point I'm trying to make is that many people's personal dislike of Clinton and admiration of Obama make them overlook the fact that both are taking the same money from the same people. If you're all about "fuck corporations" then at least be consistent about it and not just basing it on your personal feelings about someone.

Oh yeah well duh Obama's a corporate stooge. Not as bad as Hillary but pretty damn bad.

 

[OuterLimits]

I admit I have very little enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. Although I'm glad to see she and even Chelsea are attacking Bernie some.

 

[NDP_Mulcair]

Only one person didn't vote for Iraq, Bernie. But if you're going to make yourself look like a fool and do a meaningless write in go ahead. You're only helping hand over the presidency to someone who will undo all the progress accomplished over the last 8 years.

This is precisely what's wrong with modern-day politics in the USA. Way too many people settle for a corrupt corporate shill instead of voting for someone who actually represents them because of the "lesser of two evils" fallacy.

Why anyone would be enthusiastic for the return of a political dynasty eludes me. Have we returned to the days of the Monarchy?

1989-1993: Bush
1993-2001: Clinton
2001-2009: Bush
2016-2024: Clinton

24-28 years of either a Bush or Clinton if Hillary gets in. Absolutely disgusting. What's next? Jeb Bush in 2024? Chelsea Clinton in 2028?

It's time to break away from the iron grip of political dynasties.

If I'm going to vote in this political cycle, it's going to be an anti-establishment candidate, one who really wants to challenge the status quo and isn't in the pocket of special interests and corporations. I really hope Bernie Sanders is able to beat her for that reason.

 

[HiResDes]

Why do people keep bringing up socialism as the main detractor for Bernie and then in the next breath stating that Hilary and Bernie have many similar policies? It's kind of bullshit.

 

[Aaronology]

Why do people keep bringing up socialism as the main detractor for Bernie and then in the next breath stating that Hilary and Bernie have many similar policies? It's kind of bullshit.

One of them has embraced the label of "democratic socialist" and the other has not. Regardless of their policies, it's an avenue of attack that will work on one of them much better than the other.

It isn't complicated.

 

[HiResDes]

One of them has embraced the label of "democratic socialist" and the other has not. Regardless of their policies, it's an avenue of attack that will work on one of them much better than the other.

It isn't complicated.

Yeah that's true I just don't understand why people get so hung up on voting for the person that they think will win rather than the person they agree with the most in some situations.

 

[thepotatoman]

I would say her style of compromise is quite different from Obama's. Where Obama might try give the right something they really want in exchange for the left getting something they want, Hillary tries to fiddle until there's nothing specific anyone on any side can point to as offensive, but when taken as a whole is simply a bad pace of legislation that is so watered down it doesn't do anything but waste time and money. Most of her signature legislation plays right into the right wing talking points about government being ineffectual and overly complicated thanks to this style of compromise.

Otherwise, she's pretty ideologically similar to Obama, and compromise isn't going happening anyway.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

This is precisely what's wrong with modern-day politics in the USA. Way too many people settle for a corrupt corporate shill instead of voting for someone who actually represents them because of the "lesser of two evils" fallacy.

Why anyone would be enthusiastic for the return of a political dynasty eludes me. Have we returned to the days of the Monarchy?

1989-1993: Bush
1993-2001: Clinton
2001-2009: Bush
2016-2024: Clinton

24-28 years of either a Bush or Clinton if Hillary gets in. Absolutely disgusting. What's next? Jeb Bush in 2024? Chelsea Clinton in 2028?

It's time to break away from the iron grip of political dynasties.

If I'm going to vote in this political cycle, it's going to be an anti-establishment candidate, one who really wants to challenge the status quo and isn't in the pocket of special interests and corporations. I really hope Bernie Sanders is able to beat her for that reason.

So what? You're going to just not vote if Hilary gets the nom because her last name is Clinton? That's an awful downright ignorant excuse to not vote especially if its a democrat. If you want real change, it's going to be a long, hard fought, uphill battle done from the local level up that's not going to be done if you just vote for president. Oh and change happens in the supreme court which you do not want to have a republican make the noms no matter what. But go on and tell me about meaningless crap like "political dynasties."

 

[lupinko]

Tom Mulcair posts on gaf? Wtf!!!

Spoiler

lol

 

[Jack Remington]

Unfortunately I won't be able to support anyone who voted for the War on Iraq.

I'll just do a write in for Bernie when the general election comes.

You help put any of the Republicans (except Rand, lol) in the White House, we're going back Iraq with a ground force. Back to roadside bombings and ambushes. Back to troop deaths in the news every day.

 

[NDP_Mulcair]

So what? You're going to just not vote if Hilary gets the nom because her last name is Clinton? That's an awful downright ignorant excuse to not vote especially if its a democrat. If you want real change, it's going to be a long, hard fought, uphill battle done from the local level up that's not going to be done if you just vote for president. Oh and change happens in the supreme court which you do not want to have a republican make the noms no matter what. But go on and tell me about meaningless crap like "political dynasties."

The Bushes and the Clintons are symbols of a corrupt system and a permanent governing class. Willingly voting in the corruption and baggage of the Bush and Clinton families for 30 years is something I'm not going to do out of principle.

I have one vote. That one vote isn't going to make any difference in the scheme of things as millions will vote and elect regardless of what I say or think. The establishment will continue convincing people that Hillary is "for the people." But that one vote I make will be made with a conscience free of guilt embracing the tenets of a Democratic Republic espoused by George Washington who despised the two-party system.

Maybe if more people decided to do that then have a desperate need to settle for slimeballs we COULD see real change in politics.

But hey! I'm just one guy! I'm sure enough people will subscribe to your "lesser of two evils" fallacy and vote her in. I'm sure that's what the establishment loves to hear. We'll go right back to the status quo in Washington the moment Obama leaves the Oval. I can't wait! Let's beat the Republicans, guys!

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Why do people keep bringing up socialism as the main detractor for Bernie and then in the next breath stating that Hilary and Bernie have many similar policies? It's kind of bullshit.

I read this immediately after browsing Facebook for a bit and caught myself trying to find a like button.


I think most people mention it not because they're personally upset that he's a self-avowed socialist, but because they feel the self-avowed half of that equation will be easily exploited by the GOP nominee. I don't doubt that, although I do doubt the success that line of attack would have. That said, I think you have to weigh the extent to which Hillary Clinton being Hillary Clinton hurts her odds as well. Outside of card carrying dems, Hillary is seen as a calculated career politician in an election cycle that is themed around not electing a calculated career politician. You have to wonder if more people would vote against Hillary or against "the socialist". Personally, I think Hillary carries a more pointed, acidic distaste for many voters just as Trump does for many others. I don't see people lining up to ensure Sanders isn't elected in the same numbers I'd imagine for Hillary. She's garnered the disapproval of half the country for two decades, and "3rd term of Obama" is almost definitely more damning than "socialist" to that crowd of people (or at least synonymous). While I fully admit to being biased, I'm concerned about the perception among dems that Hillary is the safer bet. Neither calculation nor centrism seem to be favorable or even passable qualities this time around. The fact that Hillary is statistically tied in Iowa with Bernie fucking Sanders should be a wake up call that she is not the kind of politician this election can bank on. This really feels like an election to which conventional logic doesn't apply.

 

[ivysaur12]

If we're going to look at the states in which Bernie should be doing best in (predominately white, liberal bases), Iowa and New Hampshire are his second and third best states after Vermont. Bernie hit the electoral jackpot in terms of scheduling. If a state like New York or Illinois or Virginia started the schedule, this race would look very different.

That's not a knock against Bernie, but more of the fact that Bernie doing well in Iowa isn't really an indicative of his overall electoral strength versus his natural base.

And he might lose Iowa, which should be his third best state. That would speak to the electoral strength of Hillary.

 

[Jack Remington]

I really don't see the "corruption." Omg, the Clintons have a foundation. One that does a ton of good in the world. Republicans have made this admirable organization synonymous with organized crime somehow.

 

[Tesseract]

bernie / warren 2016

 

[Ri'Orius]

Only one person didn't vote for Iraq, Bernie. But if you're going to make yourself look like a fool and do a meaningless write in go ahead. You're only helping hand over the presidency to someone who will undo all the progress accomplished over the last 8 years.

If someone lives in a swing state, yeah, I'd say they need to vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination regardless. But most of us live in safe states one way or the other. And I'm a firm believer that in that scenario, we should be voting our ideals. Your voice won't influence the actual result, so it may as well speak your mind.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

If we're going to look at the states in which Bernie should be doing best in (predominately white, liberal bases), Iowa and New Hampshire are his second and third best states after Vermont. Bernie hit the electoral jackpot in terms of scheduling. If a state like New York or Illinois or Virginia started the schedule, this race would look very different.

That's not a knock against Bernie, but more of the fact that Bernie doing well in Iowa isn't really an indicative of his overall electoral strength versus his natural base.

No, but the fact he can win in any state should call into question the quality of Clinton's armor. A candidate as far left as Sanders should be in O Malley's position. The fact that Bernie isn't in that position speaks to both his underestimation as a candidate and Clinton's overestimation, if you ask me. I'm ready to support whoever wins, but I have serious concerns about Hillary as the safer bet. I think the GOP will have an easier time galvanizing votes against Hillary "Obama's 3rd term and face of the democratic party" Clinton than Bernie "Socialist" Sanders. Swaying undecided voters is unimportant. Most independent voters are republicans without the title anyway. If you can make this race about an energized dem base vs. an energized GOP base, the dem base wins on numbers.

 

[Chariot]

Most Bernie supporters dislike Obama so your point is moot.

Is that so? Receipts please.

 

[ivysaur12]

No, but the fact he can win in any state should call into question the quality of Clinton's armor. A candidate as far left as Sanders should be in O Malley's position. The fact that Bernie isn't in that position speaks to both his underestimation as a candidate and Clinton's overestimation, if you ask me. I'm ready to support whoever wins, but I have serious concerns about Hillary as the safer bet. I think the GOP will have an easier time galvanizing votes against Hillary "Obama's 3rd term and face of the democratic party" Clinton than Bernie "Socialist" Sanders. Swaying undecided voters is unimportant. Most independent voters are republicans without the title anyway. If you can make this race about an energized dem base vs. an energized GOP base, the dem base wins on numbers.

Now you sound like a Republican saying that you don't need to appeal to the middle, just the base.

Someone was always going to be the NotHillary. And that person -- Bernie Sanders -- will probably have a very tough time overcoming the first Super Tuesday. If Bernie were not in the race, O'Malley would be at 10-15%. Maybe 20%!

I think it's much easier for the GOP to attack an UN-battle tested socialist versus Hillary. The GOP dream is a Bernie candidacy. I really, truly feel -- as of today -- he would do worse in the general than she would.

 

[EmSeta]

It'd be cool having a female US president. Some of her policies are good.

But man, she's clearly lacking in the charisma department.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Most Bernie supporters dislike Obama so your point is moot.

One look at the SOTU thread shows an awful lot of posts like "oh my god, this speech is so much like Bernie's! He's telling us to vote for Bernie you guys!"

So, no I don't believe that. I think there's plenty of people who justify personal feelings with corporate shill talk but still like Obama because he's a cool guy while Hillary is a shrill old woman.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Now you sound like a Republican saying that you don't need to appeal to the middle, just the base.

Someone was always going to be the NotHillary. And that person -- Bernie Sanders -- will probably have a very tough time overcoming the first Super Tuesday. If Bernie were not in the race, O'Malley would be at 10-15%. Maybe 20%!

I think it's much easier for the GOP to attack an UN-battle tested socialist versus Hillary. The GOP dream is a Bernie candidacy. I really, truly feel -- as of today -- he would do worse in the general than she would.

This is all a matter of wait and see I suppose. Anything outside of that is conjecture. That said, if NotHillary can garner more individual contributions than any candidate in history on the basis of being NotHillary, we're in deep shit.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. I don't have that much actually against her. I mean, I think she has very little in the way of actual personal values, relying rather on what's expedient and popular. I think she finds lying easy and productive, to the extent that she sometimes lies for no real need. I think she's altogether too tightly coupled with moneyed interests.

Of course, most of that is true of every politician, give or take a bit.

I do think she is a remarkably gifted politician. She tells the right lies, usually, and she shifts in the right direction, usually. She learned campaigning with one of the masters, so I'm not surprised at all that she's good at it. I think she'd probably get more done in office than Bernie, who has a tendency towards all or nothing rhetoric, but I suspect at least half of what she got done wouldn't be so great.

I plan on voting for Bernie in the primaries, with little expectation that he'll win. I'll vote for whoever wins the primary, and not be particularly upset. I can think of a lot worse than Hillary for President. Jim Webb would have been worse, certainly. Any of the Republicans running are a thousand times worse.

well said

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is all a matter of wait and see I suppose. Anything outside of that is conjecture. That said, if NotHillary can garner more individual contributions than any candidate in history on the basis of being NotHillary, we're in deep shit.

I don't think anyone is making the case that the Dem candidates are the best. Clinton was doing pretty well until e-mails and Benghazi finally started working for Republicans and it dragged her down. Biden running would have been interesting but he's not exactly without issues himself.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't think anyone is making the case that the Dem candidates are the best. Clinton was doing pretty well until e-mails and Benghazi finally started working for Republicans and it dragged her down. Biden running would have been interesting but he's not exactly without issues himself.

No, as I said before, it's not the best year for the Dems.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I don't think anyone is making the case that the Dem candidates are the best. Clinton was doing pretty well until e-mails and Benghazi finally started working for Republicans and it dragged her down. Biden running would have been interesting but he's not exactly without issues himself.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Biden get Jim Webb'd, albeit more slowly and with more spectacle. I don't know that there's any space in today's national politics for the John Kasich's and Joe Biden's of the world. Anything overly moderate has crashed and burned this election cycle.

I still really wish Warren would have run. I know she's doing important work as it is, but she combines some of the better traits of Clinton (historicity of female presidency, actual democrat, younger) and Bernie (progressive, populist, very anti-wall street, genuine) so well. I think we'd see a much more united democratic party right now with her to rally behind.

 

[Violet_0]

Most Bernie supporters dislike Obama so your point is moot.

if it's true, GAF is certainly not a good representation of that, considering that both of them are quite popular here

 

[Fox Mulder]

It's incredibly disappointing that the party is in such a shitty state after two terms of Obama. They get raped in state races and the pool for president was Hilary and Bernie.

Hilary is awful but can coast to the nomination and likely the presidency. Too bad congress will still be shit and nothing will change.

 

[GnawtyDog]

This is all a matter of wait and see I suppose. Anything outside of that is conjecture. That said, if NotHillary can garner more individual contributions than any candidate in history on the basis of being NotHillary, we're in deep shit.

I don't think it's conjecture that the GOP is salivating at the possibility of destroying Bernie with world class political smear. I mean literally it's no joke. If you think the media (corporate media aka the U.S media) hasn't been kind to Bernie now..... you just wait when they get set loose. You tell Corporate USA you're not their guy blatantly (calling for a revolution and their "break up") and you face off against the GOP too while at it...please..... You tell the GOP they can potentially have lil Marco vs. a socialist? Christmas came early.

The GOP, and the puppeteers pulling the strings behind them are the masters of divisiveness and deceit. Add the corporate media to the mix....sayonara.

I really don't think Bernie will be able to handle it nor survive it. If he's cowering now from mentioning a raise on middle class taxes on a debate stage when pressed (for healthcare)....for being "weak" on foreign policy (too dovish - everything is a quagmire) etc...... imagine in the general playing the real deal. Bernie has a chance vs. Trump and even Cruz but absolutely no chance vs. lil Marco or even Jeb.

 

[noshten]

I don't think it's conjecture that the GOP is salivating at the possibility of destroying Bernie with world class political smear. I mean literally it's no joke. If you think the media (corporate media aka the U.S media) hasn't beeen kind to Bernie now..... you just wait when they get set loose. You tell Corporate USA you're not their way blatantly and you face off against the GOP too while at it...plzzz. You tell the GOP they can potentially have lil Marco vs. a socialist? Christmas came early.

The GOP, and the puppeteers pulling the strings behind them are the masters of divisiveness and deceit. Add the corporate media to the mix....sayonara.


I really don't think Bernie will be able to handle it nor survive it. If he's cowering now from mentioning a raise on middle class taxes on a debate stage when pressed (for healthcare)....for being "weak" on foreign policy (too dovish) etc...... imagine in the general playing the real deal. Bernie has a chance vs. TRump and even Cruz but absolutely no chance vs. lil Marco or even Jeb.

Jeb and Macro don't have a snowballs chance at getting the nomination in the current political climate.

The truth of the matter is no matter how much the GOP and their Super PACs spend in an Presidential election they would run into the same brick-wall they did in 2012. There is a demographic shift and what they currently stand for ensures they lose all minorities in a GE. They would also lose the under 45 voter block by a pretty big margin against Sanders. The only chance they actually have is if somehow turnout is far lower than expected, Sanders ensures that a lot of people that might otherwise not turn-up to vote might actually do.

 

[Jack Remington]

It'd be cool having a female US president. Some of her policies are good.

But man, she's clearly lacking in the charisma department.

She'll be fine on charisma once she can start campaigning in the general. She isn't great when she has to take on a contender attacking her from the left. Against a Republican she'll bring it.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Jeb and Macro don't have a snowballs chance at getting the nomination in the current political climate.

The truth of the matter is no matter how much the GOP and their Super PACs spend in an Presidential election they would run into the same brick-wall they did in 2012. There is a demographic shift and what they currently stand for ensures they lose all minorities in a GE. They would also lose the under 45 voter block by a pretty big margin against Sanders. The only chance they actually have is if somehow turnout is far lower than expected, Sanders ensures that a lot of people that might otherwise not turn-up to vote might actually do.

Well that's the thing. Bernie has as much a chance of winning the Democratic nomination as does lil Marco the GOP nomination - more or less.

Marco is a young "centrist" by GOP standards and will be positioned as such when the general comes - just like Jeb. Bernie will not be able to shake the far left mantra because that's what he's - that's his platform by American standards. Just like Trump or Cruz will never shake off their far right wing mantra...

Centrist in a general are positioned to do well. That's why the GOP has been mounting an offensive against Hillary since 08 (until Obama changed their target) and are mounting it again now. It sure has hit Hillary but she's still standing, still commanding the lead on the DNC side, with all the needed support, ready to go. The GOP absolutely fears that to the bone. Bernie is their best case scenario and alternative to winning. I mean you just have to look at the GOP establishment and see all the troubles they're going through right now to get their centrist guys nominated. The DNC doesn't have that problem (at least not yet). The extremes (Trump, Cruz) are a complete and total liability. Mirror that on the left. Sanders is a greater liability than Hillary.

 

[Jack Remington]

Marco is considered a centrist because he looks young and doesn't sound batshit crazy.

He's to the right of Jeb, Christie, and Kasich. Dude is a straight neocon with a social conservative platform to boot. People forget he was a Tea Party guy when he started out.

 

[Funky Papa]

I'm sure ivysaur12 has already said it, but although Sanders is old as shit, Hillary has been on the spotlight for a much longer time, which means her image has been greatly eroded.

No politician can stay for so long under the microscope and retain a saintly image. Contradictions arise, scandals take place and opposition gets to work. At the end of the day, even people of your political leanings lose some of their enthusiasm. You can fight it, but you can't avoid it.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Most Bernie supporters dislike Obama so your point is moot.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Marco is considered a centrist because he looks young and doesn't sound batshit crazy.

He's to the right of Jeb, Christie, and Kasich. Dude is a straight neocon with a social conservative platform to boot. People forget he was a Tea Party guy when he started out.

A paper tiger vs. the right candidate.

 

[teruterubozu]

Most Bernie supporters dislike Obama so your point is moot.

I wouldn't say hate, but they certainly do not want status quo Hillary.

 

[noshten]

Well that's the thing. Bernie has as much a chance of winning the Democratic nomination as does lil Marco the GOP nomination - more or less.

Marco is a young "centrist" by GOP standards and will be positioned as such when the general comes - just like Jeb. Bernie will not be able to shake the far left mantra because that's what he's - that's his platform by American standards. Just like Trump or Cruz will never shake off their far right wing mantra...

Centrist in a general are positioned to well. That's why the GOP has been mouting an offensive against Hillary since 08 (until Obama changed their target) and are mounting it again now. It sure has hit Hillary but she's still standing, still commanding the lead on the DNC side, with all the needed support, ready to go. The GOP absolutely fears that to the bone. Bernie is their best case scenario.

First of all you're overrating Rubio by a big margin. His chances of the nomination are much slimmer than Bernie.

Secondly GOP attacking Hillary is actually good for her. The fact that the media has barely focused on Sanders as a possibility up until a week ago, ensured that this was the narrative. This obviously has been hurting Sanders since he only had a fraction of the national media coverage anyone from the GOP circus has or Clinton for that matter. Disingenuous attacks against him only ensure he raises more money and is able to impeccably defend his positions on different news outlets and interviews. The worst attacks on him have so far came from the "left" or Clinton campaign and the only thing they've done is fire up his support, the worse the attacks get the narrower the gap between him and Clinton becomes.

I feel Clinton has learned very little from 08 and is falling into the same patterns of negative rhetoric.

 

[Funky Papa]

The GOP dream is a Bernie candidacy. I really, truly feel -- as of today -- he would do worse in the general than she would.

I think the GOP is too fractured at this point to even know who the fuck they prefer to face.

More than his political credentials, the biggest issue with Sanders is that he's not a great speaker. Another non-establishment candidate, one capable or reaching to that part of their electorate not moved by abortion or gay marriage, could throw them into a panic. Hillary, however, is utterly despised by all the party.

This is quite probably the point where I see no real advantage for either of them.

 

[Jack Remington]

Sanders is a tremendous speaker at his own rallies. Yet to be seen how well that would translate to a general election campaign.

 

[GnawtyDog]

First of all you're overrating Rubio by a big margin. His chances of the nomination are much slimmer than Bernie.

6 person race that should narrow down to 3 vs. 2 person race. At the end of the day when it comes to the GOP, all that matters to them is that their establishment pick gets in. In that sense, they're both facing about the same odds in a way.

Secondly GOP attacking Hillary is actually good for her. The fact that the media has barely focused on Sanders as a possibility up until a week ago, ensured that this was the narrative. This obviously has been hurting Sanders since he only had a fraction of the national media coverage anyone from the GOP circus has or Clinton for that matter. Disingenuous attacks against him only ensure he raises more money and is able to impeccably defend his positions on different news outlets and interviews. The worst attacks on him have so far came from the "left" or Clinton campaign and the only thing they've done is fire up his support, the worse the attacks get the narrower the gap between him and Clinton becomes.

The GOP attacking Hillary is not "good" when the attacks clearly show that it does damage her favorability ratings across the nation.

Negative attacks and scandals are not a net positive. No way to spin that. The GOP also attacks Hillary because they're convinced:

#1: She's the most probable candidate to get the nomination by and large (with the most support, the best prepared etc etc...) and hitting her early and defining her early is good for the general. See: Obama vs. Rommey 12'.
#2: It helps the lesser candidates competing against her land an unprobable upset. These lesser candidates are a preferred alternative to run against - in the case of Sanders given his "far left" ,"socialist" platform.
#3 Driving her favorables down also makes Hillary move further left to fend off Sanders in order to keep/gain support to win the primary. This in turn helps the GOP in the general land attacks vs. "extreme positions" or "positions of weakness".

So there are more benefits than drawbacks in hitting Hillary at every turn. The media is going to talk about her regardless...she's after all, the overwhelming favorite.

The very people that support Sanders and call out Hillary shill, fake, corrupt have subconsciously in many ways come about this sentiment through the work of the GOP. That is, the heat the Republicans have brought onto Hillary throughout her career. I mean, I don't understand how Sander supporters fail to see this (not be self-aware) sometimes.. kinda baffles me. But, that's what smear, political attacks and opposition on her character do....+ it gets propagated throughout the media in a never ending feedback loop.....Whether the validity of those attacks and labels have merit or not is not significant. What's significant is the primary source that encourages such dissent on her character and that's the GOP.

 

[Henchmen21]

For those saying that the GOP is salivating at the thought of beating Bernie, here's a fact that says otherwise.