Sanders trailed Hillary by 41pts in May. Now within 7.

[Anung Un Rama]

Weird comment to make about a candidate that is the clear betting favorite in the race and probably the best-qualified candidate (doesn't mean the subjective favorite of anyone). I mean, what would you call someone like Cruz?

It's like saying that MM sucks. Maybe he doesn't meet your standards, but what about the rest of the division? Maybe you just don't like MMA.

Terrible analogy that doesn't refute the post you quoted.

1. She's a terrible candidate - subjective, but based on her steadily losing popularity and her negative ratings steadily rising it seems to be accurate. Couple that with her flip flopping on gay marriage and immigration, voting for the war in Iraq, her CU hypocrisy, and her practically inherent appearance of impropriety it appears the DNC may have relied too heavily on her fame more so than the climate of the country.

2. Runs a terrible campaign - also subjective, but not nearly as much. Two election cycles in a row she started out as the heavy favorite and steadily loses ground. She's been preparing for these campaigns for 16 years....She obviously doesn't run a good campaign.

MM is the heavy favorite in shallow division and proves why he is the favorite pretty quickly.

Hillary is selling wolf tickets.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

Bernie is the one guy who has stuck to his guns since before most of us we're probably even thought of. Clinton is bought and paid for by the same corporations who have bought and paid for decades of presidents who have done basically squat for us. Why anyone would want to continue down that road is insane.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's not weird at all.

1. She does not have good qualifications to be president. She was a terrible secretary of state and has few accomplishments for a woman who has been in the political limelight as long as she has been.

2. Her campaign was doing well mainly because of a submissive media, who she literally ropes off at her campaign events. She doesn't answer questions and when she does they are softballs.

3. She has never won a campaign that was strongly contested. Her senate seat was a gimme, which is why she ran in New York. She isn't charismatic and politically she has a tin ear.

Terrible analogy that doesn't refute the post you quoted.

So this is the kind of thing that's wrong with the discourse here generally. It's fine to have an opinion, but an honest discussion of facts should always come first. I get that you guys both hate Clinton, but to deny that she's the most qualified candidate (something even Rubio admitted, for fuck's sake) or that she's been running the best campaign by far (nearly even odds against the field, while Bush is 4-1 underdog and everyone else is worse than that) is just willful ignorance. You can still hate someone while acknowledging that they are successful at some things, you know. Or conversely, you can like someone while acknowledging that they aren't perfect.

And holy crap, Inga, are you seriously suggesting that Clinton is *liked* by the mainstream media? That's as bad as if someone said that Trump is going to win because Hispanics love him so much.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

So far as I know, Bernie is the only one spewing facts, and detailed information about the important topics that's being discusses as well as a clear concise opinion as to his stance on that subject.

All the other fuckers running just spew bullet points like " we need to get America back on top!"

Bernie also benefits the fact that he's always had these opinions and as such comes across as genuine.

And finally, Bernie clearly isn't getting any money from corporate shills, so you know that he's the only one least likely to be bought off. To me he comes across as a sincere old man that wants to leave this earth doing good.

Then you need to look harder and look to what Clinton is saying and look to all that she supported prior to running in 2008 when she and Obama had to lie to brainwashed voters in order to appear to a more 'right wing' base. The truth and reality of the situation is that all the main points you love about Bernie Sanders are things that Hillary supports and supported years ago as well.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

So this is the kind of thing that's wrong with the discourse here generally. It's fine to have an opinion, but an honest discussion of facts should always come first. I get that you guys both hate Clinton, but to deny that she's the most qualified candidate (something even Rubio admitted, for fuck's sake) or that she's been running the best campaign by far (nearly even odds against the field, while Bush is 4-1 underdog and everyone else is worse than that) is just willful ignorance. You can still hate someone while acknowledging that they are successful at some things, you know. Or conversely, you can like someone while acknowledging that they aren't perfect.

And holy crap, Inga, are you seriously suggesting that Clinton is *liked* by the mainstream media? That's as bad as if someone said that Trump is going to win because Hispanics love him so much.

What do you think are Hillary Clinton's greatest achievements of the past four years?

Why do you think she is dropping so rapidly in the polls?

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

can you imagine the negative reception Hillary wouldve gotten? I think this speaks to the broad appeal of Sanders' populist message.

do you know how the electoral college works? It will take a miracle for any Republican to win 2016. The only battle of relevance this election is the democratic primary.

College youth are largely uninformed, most are more concerned with the music industry, instagram, and drugs. Sanders appeals to them because he promises them "free stuff" and an easy life. These same people then freak out when they realize they will have to pay higher taxes.


Also I would account bet anyone and betting all that I own that Bernie Sanders will NEVER become President of the United States of America.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think you understood my point, and I don't think you will be able to. I'm not countering your braindead haterism with braindead boosterism. So my opinion about her recent accomplishments is irrelevant. The point is that regardless of what you think of her, she is, objectively, the strongest candidate in the race and running by far the best (i.e., most successful) campaign. You can think she would be a terrible president and still admit those facts.

And why do you think she's "dropping so rapidly in the polls?" Could it be a consequence of there being other people in the race, maybe? You think? Nate Silver was predicting this a couple of years ago. Clinton was more popular as Secretary of State and then as the only major candidate in her party than any politician in either party could be as a presidential candidate running against other people. That was inevitably going to change, though her current position is still by far the best of any candidate in either party.

 

[Adamant]

Also I would account bet anyone and betting all that I own that Bernie Sanders will NEVER become President of the United States of America.

No pro-Bernie voter is going to take that bet. They know they'll lose their ass. :icon_lol:

 

[Madmick]

This is the part where I put the "I Want to Believe" poster up in my office, but the thing is, I don't, which is why I definitely don't agree that the era of "inevitability in politics" is over. Nay, it is just entering its prime.

The "real" campaign start is just as far off for Bernie as it is for Donald.

 

[Adamant]

It's ridiculous how Bernie talks about wanting to do away with racism, but wont touch on anti-white racism. Clearly, his message is that whites are the racist ones. No mention against racist blacks, or mexicans, or any other white-hating groups.

 

[KOQ24]

Sanders needs to cut into her minority support.
He needs as many debates as possible

 

[Jack V Savage]

Duck what, exactly? Were you asking me a question? If so, I missed it. Ask it again and I will respond clearly.

I won't hold my breath because we both know that isn't the case.

Its pretty clear you either:
1. pretended to take offense at my post to skew perception of what I posted as racially insensitive further exposing what we all know (that you're a troll).

or

2. You actually were offended by it and if we apply those standards to your post then it's clear you're an anti-semite and a hypocrite.

Stay shitty, Jack.

And this is equally typical of your slimy tactics. What did I actually comment on? Your belief that electing exactly one president in history who wasn't white or male (who, as I mentioned, is actually one of the best ever) constitutes not taking the presidency seriously and "suggesting rotating non-whites and woman out of some ridiculous sense of fairness." It doesn't even occur to you that I said that because I believe that you are wrong, and that you are, in fact, wrong. God forbid, because then you'd have to think about it, and maybe realize that actually that you have a rather serious, perhaps unconscious, prejudice there. It has to be either me pretending to believe something to "skew perception" (like, seriously, WTF--is that how you talk to people in real life? You're seriously lacking in basic human decency) or I don't even know how you reach the bizarre anti-semite conclusion. You're pretending that I said the same thing you did--that it's somehow de-legitimizing the presidency to not exclusively elect white makes--but I said no such thing.

 

[theBLADE1]

I don't think you understood my point, and I don't think you will be able to. I'm not countering your braindead haterism with braindead boosterism. So my opinion about her recent accomplishments is irrelevant. The point is that regardless of what you think of her, she is, objectively, the strongest candidate in the race and running by far the best (i.e., most successful) campaign. You can think she would be a terrible president and still admit those facts.

And why do you think she's "dropping so rapidly in the polls?" Could it be a consequence of there being other people in the race, maybe? You think? Nate Silver was predicting this a couple of years ago. Clinton was more popular as Secretary of State and then as the only major candidate in her party than any politician in either party could be as a presidential candidate running against other people. That was inevitably going to change, though her current position is still by far the best of any candidate in either party.

Okay so I have a legit question. Tell me why do you think she is running the best campaign of any candidate? Like what specifically about her campaign has gotten her to the point she's at? And I'm talking specifically about her now, no analogies to any other prior campaigns by people who aren't Hillary Clinton. Help me understand how her, as you claim "substantially lead" is attributed to anything other than she is by far and away the most recognizable Democrat running.

 

[exjuny]

Duck what, exactly? Were you asking me a question? If so, I missed it. Ask it again and I will respond clearly.

I won't hold my breath because we both know that isn't the case.

Its pretty clear you either:
1. pretended to take offense at my post to skew perception of what I posted as racially insensitive further exposing what we all know (that you're a troll).

or

2. You actually were offended by it and if we apply those standards to your post then it's clear you're an anti-semite and a hypocrite.


Stay shitty, Jack.

he's a b team troll at that

 

[theBLADE1]

So this is the kind of thing that's wrong with the discourse here generally. It's fine to have an opinion, but an honest discussion of facts should always come first. I get that you guys both hate Clinton, but to deny that she's the most qualified candidate (something even Rubio admitted, for fuck's sake) or that she's been running the best campaign by far (nearly even odds against the field, while Bush is 4-1 underdog and everyone else is worse than that) is just willful ignorance. You can still hate someone while acknowledging that they are successful at some things, you know. Or conversely, you can like someone while acknowledging that they aren't perfect.

And holy crap, Inga, are you seriously suggesting that Clinton is *liked* by the mainstream media? That's as bad as if someone said that Trump is going to win because Hispanics love him so much.

and no sorry no one is being willfully ignorant just because you can't prove that Hillary Clinton is running a good campaign. The proof is obvious to everyone.

 

[Jack V Savage]

he's a b team troll at that

The fact that posters of the caliber of you, Glennrod, Anung, second sight, Cable, etc. are always attacking me is a bigger compliment than the praise of the good posters here.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I don't think you understood my point, and I don't think you will be able to. I'm not countering your braindead haterism with braindead boosterism. So my opinion about her recent accomplishments is irrelevant. The point is that regardless of what you think of her, she is, objectively, the strongest candidate in the race and running by far the best (i.e., most successful) campaign. You can think she would be a terrible president and still admit those facts.

And why do you think she's "dropping so rapidly in the polls?" Could it be a consequence of there being other people in the race, maybe? You think? Nate Silver was predicting this a couple of years ago. Clinton was more popular as Secretary of State and then as the only major candidate in her party than any politician in either party could be as a presidential candidate running against other people. That was inevitably going to change, though her current position is still by far the best of any candidate in either party.

I agree. The mainstream media is also very critical of her right now which is further proof that she is anti Establishment in that regard. The overt hate for Hillary (and now Biden) and touting up of Sanders as "the only hope" is surely a GOP tactic. I swear they are paying people to trash her everywhere and to try and get a longshot who is unelectable at the national stage like Bernie the Democratic nomination.

Okay so I have a legit question. Tell me why do you think she is running the best campaign of any candidate? Like what specifically about her campaign has gotten her to the point she's at? And I'm talking specifically about her now, no analogies to any other prior campaigns by people who aren't Hillary Clinton. Help me understand how her, as you claim "substantially lead" is attributed to anything other than she is by far and away the most recognizable Democrat running.

Jack knows a lot about economics and always seems to be right about economic issues. So if he feels Sanders isnt best for the economy there is probably some truth to it. Because JVS is not alone in that regard.

Her recent poll number slips is only the result of people temporarily likjng someone else and it varies by state. Mostly young and college kids are the hardcore Bernie fans and they will flip once the feminist stick to Hillary and the Celebrities. Also it is undeniable that she is the most experienced and best educated candidate who appeals to more Americans based off her often centrist and anti Establishment views. Hillary does not cater to the rich nor does she cater to those on the far right or far left and that is what Americans want.

 

[Quipling]

So far as I know, Bernie is the only one spewing facts, and detailed information about the important topics that's being discusses as well as a clear concise opinion as to his stance on that subject.

All the other fuckers running just spew bullet points like " we need to get America back on top!" .

Pretty sure that Hillary has released several substantive plans as well, even if she doesn't stump about them very much right now. Even if many of the GOP nominees are without substance, I'd be shocked if none of them had anything either.

Bernie has been great about getting the facts out, but he's hardly the only one to take definite, nonconclusory positions supported by information.

I like Bernie more than Hillary, but you're still wrong in claiming he's the only one to do this. He's just been the person with the most positive media attention who is doing it.

 

[theBLADE1]

Jack knows a lot about economics and always seems to be right about economic issues. So if he feels Sanders isnt best for the economy there is probably some truth to it. Because JVS is not alone in that regard.

Her recent poll number slips is only the result of people temporarily likjng someone else and it varies by state. Mostly young and college kids are the hardcore Bernie fans and they will flip once the feminist stick to Hillary and the Celebrities. Also it is undeniable that she is the most experienced and best educated candidate who appeals to more Americans based off her often centrist and anti Establishment views. Hillary does not cater to the rich nor does she cater to those on the far right or far left and that is what Americans want.

Yeah but you see the thing is I feel like Jack at least tries to prove a point when he types something out. You on the other hand, are like an annoying TMZ reporter. it's so irritating how dismissive you are of the Sanders campaign. I don't care at all if you don't like him but now you're saying that all his supporters will flip-flop once feminist and celebrities start endorsing him???? Hillary is nowhere near capable of drawing a crowd of 100,000 people that Bernie is set to do in October or November. He has been packing stadiums like a rock star and yet you think they will all flip-flop because someone like fucking Kim Kardashian endorses her????? THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!

That's why I can't take shit you say seriously!!!!! All of her experience counts for nothing as every time she runs for president she ends up slowly slipping in the polls because people realize that any stance she takes is only because she thinks it will get her elected. People don't want to endorse somebody who flip-flops all the time like Hillary does. She has changed her stance on everything from gay marriage, the war in Iraq, bailing out Wall Street, and the list goes on. Even Women her key demographic is starting to realize that Bernie Sanders is actually better on women's issues. I read an article about it just the other day.

She's definitely not the most educated because if she was she would make a concerted effort to try and do something to win back all of the votes she's losing. she's a corporate shill! And like I tried to tell Jack, the only reason she has a lead in the polls is because WAAAAAAAAAAY more people know who she is.

I expect all of that to change when the debates start.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

a geriatric flip-flopping commie who probably won't even live 4 more years. He's 74. good grief. It's nappy time for him

My perception of Sanders is that he's genuine and had been consistent. What did he flip flop on?

 

[Forkfoot]

If you can't find meaning in what I said to you, good luck in life. By the way I'm not hating on Sanders, I agree with a few of his platforms. The guy is just not willing to play ball.

I'm just letting you know the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Look, I'm not even saying he can't win the Dem nomination.

If you don't think he can beat any of the cans the GOP has lined up, you're nuts.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Maybe. It's just really weird for me because I am old enough to remember when the knock was that she was a radical leftist.

I remember that too, it was 20 years ago though and no doubt she's changed since then. Ultimately we don't really know where she stands. As senator, as presidential candidate, and as SoS she voiced centrist positions. As a candidate this time she also initially camped out just slightly left of center and as the political landscape has formed pulled from that. Ultimately we have little idea what she actually believes. Now, you can argue that her... flexibility might actually be a good thing so as to get things done with a hostile legislature but that's a different issue than discussing integrity or what her positions really are.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Okay so I have a legit question. Tell me why do you think she is running the best campaign of any candidate?

She's winning. Huge favorite against the field to win the nomination, and even money against the field to win in the general (while no one else is better than about 4-1). Now, a great candidate can win despite a bad campaign (or a bad candidate can lose despite a great campaign), but you can't be winning by a lot and be a bad candidate running a bad campaign. By definition. The job of the campaign is to make the candidate widely recognized and widely liked, and Clinton is probably the second-most popular politician in America and is widely known.

What happens is that lesser thinkers decide that someone is "good" or "bad" and then everything is filtered through those lenses. You can hate Clinton with the heat of a thousand suns and think she would be a terrible president, but you can't deny that she's running a terrific campaign (unless you just think she's an amazing candidate and would dominate no matter how bad a campaign she was running).

and no sorry no one is being willfully ignorant just because you can't prove that Hillary Clinton is running a good campaign. The proof is obvious to everyone.

Huh?

 

[exjuny]

The fact that posters of the caliber of you, Glennrod, Anung, second sight, Cable, etc. are always attacking me is a bigger compliment than the praise of the good posters here.

I didnt attack you. I just voiced the sentiment that everyone has.

 

[theBLADE1]

She's winning. Huge favorite against the field to win the nomination, and even money against the field to win in the general (while no one else is better than about 4-1). Now, a great candidate can win despite a bad campaign (or a bad candidate can lose despite a great campaign), but you can't be winning by a lot and be a bad candidate running a bad campaign. By definition. The job of the campaign is to make the candidate widely recognized and widely liked, and Clinton is probably the second-most popular politician in America and is widely known.

What happens is that lesser thinkers decide that someone is "good" or "bad" and then everything is filtered through those lenses. You can hate Clinton with the heat of a thousand suns and think she would be a terrible president, but you can't deny that she's running a terrific campaign (unless you just think she's an amazing candidate and would dominate no matter how bad a campaign she was running).

I'm sorry but being a 4 to 1 favorite doesn't prove that sees winning because she's a good candidate. It only really proves that so many more people know who Hillary Clinton is as opposed to Bernie Sanders or O'Malley or any other candidate for that matter. Add that on top of brainless people who are only going to vote for her because she is a woman Democrat. If they had twice the budget of Hillary Clinton it wouldn't really matter because it wouldn't give them the benefit of being in the public eye for over 25 years now.

And all you can say is that she is a 4 to 1 favorite. You have yet to say any specific reason or detail as to what makes her campaign thus far "terrific". It's getting pretty one note.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I remember that too, it was 20 years ago though and no doubt she's changed since then. Ultimately we don't really know where she stands. As senator, as presidential candidate, and as SoS she voiced centrist positions.

Well, she was the 11th-most liberal senator during her time in the Senate, according to DW-NOMINATE in terms of her voting record (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate). Sanders was No. 1, though. Further left than Kerry or Obama. It's probably to be expected that the party would move further left following a successful presidency.

Though, really, I don't see ideological gradations as being all that important. For example, look at the MW. Sanders led on $15 an hour, but that now seems to be something the entire party is behind. I disagree--not because I don't agree with trying to reduce poverty or something, but because I don't think it will be effective and I don't think it's well-targeted. Someone might consider me to be to the right of the party on the issue, but I don't see it that way. I think I'm ideologically on the same page (and I'd favor stuff like monthly cash payments to parents that would probably be considered unacceptably left by the party), but I differ on execution.

With regard to Clinton and Sanders, what little difference there is is along those lines, IMO. They have roughly similar goals but different ideas about how to get there. That's a good thing, IMO. Voters can see them hash it out and make arguments. Sanders certainly has a bolder approach, while Clinton is more careful. Good range of discussion there. But when it turns to a game of stamping out of heretics, that's harmful, and more likely to lead the country in the opposite direction. It's also disturbing how many Sanders supporters online (probably not many in real life) are people who supported a candidate with the exact opposite set of goals (reducing taxes and avoiding any action to address poverty, inequality or climate change) just three years ago.

As a candidate this time she also initially camped out just slightly left of center and as the political landscape has formed pulled from that. Ultimately we have little idea what she actually believes. Now, you can argue that her... flexibility might actually be a good thing so as to get things done with a hostile legislature but that's a different issue than discussing integrity or what her positions really are.

I think it's fair to say that she's very liberal on domestic issues and moderate on foreign policy. Though that doesn't matter much to me either. It's what can she get done that really matters. All the Democrats are talking about a Constitutional Amendment to change CU, but IMO, that is pure fundraising bullshit with zero chance of success (and not something that would have any impact even if it did succeed). Pare that kind of stuff out, and what are you left with? What can the next Democratic president hope to accomplish? I think it's mostly going to be protecting a lot of the progress Obama has made (healthcare reform, environmental progress--which can be expanded, protect civil rights progress, continue a less-belligerent foreign-policy approach). I'd expect a MW increase to be a real fight with some positive outcome (not the full ask). Maybe something to make college more affordable. I think that the left is in for a slog, and every bit of progress made will require hard fights, and there will be a lot of setbacks.

I didnt attack you. I just voiced the sentiment that everyone has.

Not really. Check the year-end threads over the past few years. Also, check the objective quality of the posts of people on your side of the issue and people on the other side.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm sorry but being a 4 to 1 favorite doesn't prove that sees winning because she's a good candidate.

It's a combination of being a good candidate and running a good campaign. And the point of a campaign is to get elected, right? How does the very fact that she's a heavy favorite not end the discussion?

It only really proves that so many more people know who Hillary Clinton is as opposed to Bernie Sanders or O'Malley or any other candidate for that matter.

And that makes her ... what? And reflects that she's running a ... what kind of campaign?

Add that on top of brainless people who are only going to vote for her because she is a woman Democrat.

Don't sink to that level. If if that idiotic statement were true, it would just be another reason that she's a good candidate, wouldn't it?

And all you can say is that she is a 4 to 1 favorite. You have yet to say any specific reason or detail as to what makes her campaign thus far "terrific". It's getting pretty one note.

That's all it takes. That's like saying, "you're just saying so-and-so is a good fighter because he's beaten a lot of other good fighters and is the champion. Don't be so one-note. Mix it up a little."

 

[UpaLoompa]

You're right, what she can get done is ultimately what matters if she were to win. That's different than voting for someone on the basis of how they match up in terms of positions.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Yeah but you see the thing is I feel like Jack at least tries to prove a point when he types something out. You on the other hand, are like an annoying TMZ reporter. it's so irritating how dismissive you are of the Sanders campaign. I don't care at all if you don't like him but now you're saying that all his supporters will flip-flop once feminist and celebrities start endorsing him????

Yes. Because consider how many dumb people there are and how easily swayed the largely non-tax paying, fickle, materialistic youth is. Bernie Sanders support among-st the youth demographic is no accident and is largely a result of his populist rhetoric in which he 'promises' to uplift everyone and we all sing kumbaya. Realistically he wont' be able to get as many things done as a president as say a guy like Joe Biden could. Politics requires expert sharp game, moderate stances, being well liked, connected and conveying a message to the technocrats.

Hillary is nowhere near capable of drawing a crowd of 100,000 people that Bernie is set to do in October or November. He has been packing stadiums like a rock star and yet you think they will all flip-flop because someone like fucking Kim Kardashian endorses her????? THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!

She could as could draw that many as could most candidates. However, having some arbitrary number of people show up at specific places is NOT a reflection of how good a candidate is or how effective they could be for a nation.

That's why I can't take shit you say seriously!!!!! All of her experience counts for nothing as every time she runs for president she ends up slowly slipping in the polls because people realize that any stance she takes is only because she thinks it will get her elected. People don't want to endorse somebody who flip-flops all the time like Hillary does. She has changed her stance on everything from gay marriage, the war in Iraq, bailing out Wall Street, and the list goes on. Even Women her key demographic is starting to realize that Bernie Sanders is actually better on women's issues. I read an article about it just the other day.

She has run for president twice (this being her second time) last time she ran for president she did amazing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

You are literally insane if you think she was 'unpopular' in 2008.

People don't want to endorse somebody who flip-flops all the time like Hillary does. She has changed her stance on everything from gay marriage, the war in Iraq, bailing out Wall Street, and the list goes on. Even Women her key demographic is starting to realize that Bernie Sanders is actually better on women's issues. I read an article about it just the other day.

1) The nation was under attack by terrorism and the Afghan war was legit. She like most people (Americans, educators, military leaders, etc) were duped by the Bush administration in voting for the Iraq war. Furthermore, once she became AWARE of the lies and the gravity of the situation she SPOKE OUT against the Iraq war. Yet to radicals such as yourself a politician CAN NEVER make a mistake or most hold being lied to, to their grave.

2) Her supporting the Wall Street bailouts was completely logical. Most of all top economists, top minds, and leading technocrats supported the bailouts. Failure to have bailed out the in trouble banks would of led to the destruction of the nation economically and would of made sure that the rich elites (like Koch brothers) would literally run everything. The far lefts recent 'anti-wall street' sentiments are logical in many ways but are also illogical as they are attracting a lot of anti-government supporters and conspiracy theorist Ron Paul fans.

3) She always supported Gay Marriage just like Obama did. But she had to unfortunately tell a lie in order to appease some idiot voters. Just like Obama lied about somethings before he was elected. However, once Obama was elected he stood strong with the LGBT community.

4) I guarantee you that she won't lose the female demographic vote. Its too early anyways to tell. You are listing to the tabloids too much

Furthermore, you IGNORE the fact that Bernie Sanders voted to support stimulus, releasing economic funds, and that he voted to support a debt increase. He also only was outspoken about the 2nd half of the bailout.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/?p=7#.VeNTgPm6fIU


Also why don't you read about TARP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

It isn't 'evil' and it saved us as did the Obama administration and PROPER economic responses.

She's definitely not the most educated because if she was she would make a concerted effort to try and do something to win back all of the votes she's losing. she's a corporate shill! And like I tried to tell Jack, the only reason she has a lead in the polls is because WAAAAAAAAAAY more people know who she is.

I expect all of that to change when the debates start.

Read her background. Wellesley College and Yale Law school. Read what she has done

I also disagree about why she has a lead. Many Americans (and Democrats) are semi-moderate on many key issues. While Bernie Sanders surely wins support from gun rights fans, gay fans, women equality fans, and raise the minimum wage fans, and poor college student fans, it is important to note that on ALL those issues Obama, Hillary, Biden and the majority of the Democratic party supports those issues.

Sanders one advantage over Clinton is that he was in the Senate before she was and that he has A LOT more experience as a Senator. He also supported many things which are now popular before many other Democrats did (gay marriage, raise minimum wage, etc). However, that alone does not mean he is more fit to govern a nation.

 

[Lustercross]

Though, really, I don't see ideological gradations as being all that important. For example, look at the MW. Sanders led on $15 an hour, but that now seems to be something the entire party is behind. I disagree--not because I don't agree with trying to reduce poverty or something, but because I don't think it will be effective and I don't think it's well-targeted. Someone might consider me to be to the right of the party on the issue, but I don't see it that way. I think I'm ideologically on the same page (and I'd favor stuff like monthly cash payments to parents that would probably be considered unacceptably left by the party), but I differ on execution.

I have seen you post this before about how you think that raising mw to $15 would be harmful. Could you explain to me why you think that?

 

[Lustercross]

Yall need to at least admit that te debates are somewhat rigged towards Hillary. If she's such a big favorite, why limit it to 6 debates????

 

[exjuny]

Well, she was the 11th-most liberal senator during her time in the Senate, according to DW-NOMINATE in terms of her voting record (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate). Sanders was No. 1, though. Further left than Kerry or Obama. It's probably to be expected that the party would move further left following a successful presidency.

Though, really, I don't see ideological gradations as being all that important. For example, look at the MW. Sanders led on $15 an hour, but that now seems to be something the entire party is behind. I disagree--not because I don't agree with trying to reduce poverty or something, but because I don't think it will be effective and I don't think it's well-targeted. Someone might consider me to be to the right of the party on the issue, but I don't see it that way. I think I'm ideologically on the same page (and I'd favor stuff like monthly cash payments to parents that would probably be considered unacceptably left by the party), but I differ on execution.

With regard to Clinton and Sanders, what little difference there is is along those lines, IMO. They have roughly similar goals but different ideas about how to get there. That's a good thing, IMO. Voters can see them hash it out and make arguments. Sanders certainly has a bolder approach, while Clinton is more careful. Good range of discussion there. But when it turns to a game of stamping out of heretics, that's harmful, and more likely to lead the country in the opposite direction. It's also disturbing how many Sanders supporters online (probably not many in real life) are people who supported a candidate with the exact opposite set of goals (reducing taxes and avoiding any action to address poverty, inequality or climate change) just three years ago.



I think it's fair to say that she's very liberal on domestic issues and moderate on foreign policy. Though that doesn't matter much to me either. It's what can she get done that really matters. All the Democrats are talking about a Constitutional Amendment to change CU, but IMO, that is pure fundraising bullshit with zero chance of success (and not something that would have any impact even if it did succeed). Pare that kind of stuff out, and what are you left with? What can the next Democratic president hope to accomplish? I think it's mostly going to be protecting a lot of the progress Obama has made (healthcare reform, environmental progress--which can be expanded, protect civil rights progress, continue a less-belligerent foreign-policy approach). I'd expect a MW increase to be a real fight with some positive outcome (not the full ask). Maybe something to make college more affordable. I think that the left is in for a slog, and every bit of progress made will require hard fights, and there will be a lot of setbacks.



Not really. Check the year-end threads over the past few years. Also, check the objective quality of the posts of people on your side of the issue and people on the other side.

are you seriously going to try and say that you're objective?
wow

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Yeah but you see the thing is I feel like Jack at least tries to prove a point when he types something out. You on the other hand, are like an annoying TMZ reporter. it's so irritating how dismissive you are of the Sanders campaign. I don't care at all if you don't like him but now you're saying that all his supporters will flip-flop once feminist and celebrities start endorsing him???? Hillary is nowhere near capable of drawing a crowd of 100,000 people that Bernie is set to do in October or November. He has been packing stadiums like a rock star and yet you think they will all flip-flop because someone like fucking Kim Kardashian endorses her????? THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!

That's why I can't take shit you say seriously!!!!! All of her experience counts for nothing as every time she runs for president she ends up slowly slipping in the polls because people realize that any stance she takes is only because she thinks it will get her elected. People don't want to endorse somebody who flip-flops all the time like Hillary does. She has changed her stance on everything from gay marriage, the war in Iraq, bailing out Wall Street, and the list goes on. Even Women her key demographic is starting to realize that Bernie Sanders is actually better on women's issues. I read an article about it just the other day.

She's definitely not the most educated because if she was she would make a concerted effort to try and do something to win back all of the votes she's losing. she's a corporate shill! And like I tried to tell Jack, the only reason she has a lead in the polls is because WAAAAAAAAAAY more people know who she is.

I expect all of that to change when the debates start.

My biggest issue with Sanders is as follows

1) His Economic views that we should be more like Sweden. Sweden is an entirely different nation with a different set of principles, population, industry, economy, constitution, laws, people, size, geography, etc. Furthermore, Sweden is a nation in which it is HARDER for an average person to gain influence, power, or have any sizable sway in their government. In Sweden, the overwhelming majority of power, wealth, media owners, industry tyc00ns, and elite politicians are all of the same ethnic group/race are all native Swedes and many are related to one another. In other words in Sweden the wealth is more concentrated than in the United States. However, the one thing it has going for it is that they pay people more and their are more social services. However, those social services are expected/predicted to dry up if they continue to balloon the welfare state.

2) His "Too big too fail" rhetoric. For example the idea that we should dismantle the largest banks for being "Too big" Is absurd. It defies the logic of what top economists tell us. Furthermore, it is populist rhetoric largely supported by people who perceive the banks as the sole cause of the Financial crisis (which they were not). We should ONLY break up institutions when they become monopolies or active oligarchs (which the banks aren't except in the minds of conspiracy theorists!)

I find the idea of the government destroying businesses for being too big and successful to be similar to communism (which this nation at its core is opposed to). Furthermore, why should Jp Morgan and Chase be punished for being a large successful financial institution? They DID NOT need TARP money in 2008, instead they were forced (As admitted by the Treasury Department) to take TARP money.

3) His belief that we should withdraw our bases or presence from all over the world. That in itself is crazy and something that our allies and the people in many nations do NOT want. In Japan for example, the Japanese overwhelmingly love American aid/assistance and military presence as do the South Koreans. His notion that we should remove bases is boderline insanity. The United States is not an imperial colonist nation and while we had the failure of the Iraq war and Vietnam we have not had a war like that in a while and we won't so long as we elect good leaders like Obama.

4) Repeal of Glass Steagall... It literally does nothing. The concept of a Universal Bank is NOT evil. For example Europe and most of the world successfully manages to have Universal Banks. Regulation NOT destruction is the answer


These policies ALONE would put millions of Americans out of work and destroy our economic power we have globally.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have seen you post this before about how you think that raising mw to $15 would be harmful. Could you explain to me why you think that?

Sure. Let's say that apples generally cost $1 each. Think about what would happen if there were a law saying that you can't sell apples for less than $0.50 each. Probably it would have very little impact, except it might prevent some really big discounts. If the minimum were $1, that might help some sellers who are getting squeezed. $1.10 also might help. But what if the minimum were raised to $2? That would probably lead to a lot of sellers who get stuck with merchandise and make less money than they were before. Maybe some customers just really love apples or some sellers would be able to get really special ones, but it would hurt your average seller.

It's kind of similar with labor. Generally, I think low-wage workers are underpaid relative to what they'd get in an ideal market because they have less power and less information than their employers. So a minimum wage protects them from getting screwed and as long as it's not too high, it doesn't make it harder for low-leverage workers to find employers. But if it's too high, it can make it harder for them to get work. I think $15 is OK in some parts of the country, but it's probably way too high in others.

I also think that in general we're thinking too much about market incomes when we look to fight poverty. Most people in poverty are either children, elderly, or disabled. To really address low-end inequality, we need more transfer payments.

are you seriously going to try and say that you're objective?
wow

Huh?

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Yall need to at least admit that te debates are somewhat rigged towards Hillary. If she's such a big favorite, why limit it to 6 debates????

Disagree. I think Hillary or Biden (if he runs) or any of the candidates would do better with more debates.

6 if anything allows those who spew populist rhetoric to dominate early on.


Trump is dominating for largely that exact reason but since the GOP has SO MANY debates eventually people will wise up and realize he is continuing to repeat himself. Eventually reality will hit most Americans and they will realize that while Trump may have SOME good positions he overall lacks depth and for that reason it is most likely that the GOP will nominate someone like Rubio, Bush or even Walker as their nominee. Hillary has so much to offer for example look how she properly addressed Black Lives Matters in a way that O'Malley or Sanders failed to.

 

[bad seed]

College youth are largely uninformed, most are more concerned with the music industry, instagram, and drugs. Sanders appeals to them because he promises them "free stuff" and an easy life. These same people then freak out when they realize they will have to pay higher taxes.


Also I would account bet anyone and betting all that I own that Bernie Sanders will NEVER become President of the United States of America.

you obviously did not take the time to see the video. It was at Liberty University, a Christian school with an extremely right wing, antiliberal student body. Theyre the demographic who would be most opposed to "free handouts".

 

[ultramanhyata]

Sanders needs to cut into her minority support.
He needs as many debates as possible

Democratic establishment purposefully limiting debates to help Hillary Clinton...

https://www.intellihub.com/undemocratic-democratic-establishment-purposefully-limiting-debates-to-help-hillary-clinton/

 

[Gervinho]

This guy would be absolutely destroyed by Trump. Anyone who thinks he can challenge making america great campaign is deluded. All Trump has to do is say he is socialist and he is done

 

[Thai Otoshi]

Finally, I'm not the only one feeling the Bern...

 

[BVG]

this was back in 2003...

Love this guy!

[YT]WJaW32ZTyKE[/YT]