I haven’t read your link yet, but I think against Trump, Clinton could pull from anti-racist Republicans that are OK with corruption, while Sanders would pull idealistic “integrity” voters if they’re OK with taxes.
But if the GOP united behind Cruz? In a Cruz vs. Clinton matchup, I’m afraid Cruz would obliterate Clinton, and I hate Ted Cruz personally.
Sanders vs. Cruz would be interesting. Sanders vs. Trump might just be a realignment year. (And yeah, I sort of want it to be Sanders vs. Trump, in a way. Shake up the two-party system!)
OK, read the link, and I actually agree. Clinton is too easy to smear.
And, no, Hillary fen, “baked in” isn’t a magic word to make her negatives go away. (Has that stupid phrase appeared in this thread yet? I’ve not checked.) Even someone as beloved as Bill Cosby could become hated. You really think someone whose right had has ties to “radical Islam” (sorry, Huma), and who changed position on socialized medicine because of where the money was, and sent weapons to countries that donated to her husband’s foundation, can’t lose what little hope she has?
The kids and the idealists have seen Bernie; many of them know Danes, Swedes, Australians, & Canadians from online. Can you even keep them down on the neoliberal farm once they’ve seen socialdem Paree?
The voter who’s not typically Democratic-leaning but would consider a Democrat is probably in one of two categories: drawn to white elites like Trump, or already considers her a criminal (my mom’s word).
The Democrats have a smart play here. Let’s hope they take it.
In other words, he’s a “Jewish liberal socialist Nazi from New York who hates America, capitalism, Jesus Christ, and success.” Just like every liberal Democrat ever.
Even if I have a lucid argument, I feel like I wouldn’t be able to present it well enough. I know it sounds as if I’m giving up now that I’m being pressed to come up with arguments.
I mean… I’ll give it my best shot:
I don’t like the manner in which she discussing the case.
People talk about crying being a weakness, but sometimes it’s involuntary. Of course people would be extra critical of Hilary if she were to shed a tear because she’s a woman.
I just think there’s a lack of a ‘human’ connect. Perhaps I’m not doing a good job in finding the right words to use, (like “ethical”,) in describing my disliking Hilary.
No, the Democrats should have nominated Ralph Nader (and Ralph Nader should have run in the Democrat primary) because Ralph Nader is a national hero.
Now, that doesn’t apply to Bernie. But celebrity counts for something, and celebrity outside the political system sometimes counts for more. When we can see what you are outside the political process, we can decide if we like you.
Hillary, outside politics, is a creepy corporate lawyer. Trump, outside politics, is a joke. Bernie, outside politics, is an idealistic patriot with kooky utopian dreams. There is a base for each of these, but I suspect none of them measures up in breadth of appeal to a Nader, an Eisenhower, or even a Herbert Hoover. It’s a shame Nader approached electoral politics in a deluded way.
I will tell you that I will try to keep a more open mind about Hil-Dawg. I’m literally exhausted talking politics, and I’m not writing the best responses. There is one thing I’m sure about though. There are people who won’t Hilary.
I honestly think I’m about to fall asleep, I’ve been on Straight Dope all day. You don’t have to convince me for voting for Hilary if she wins the primary.
Well said. And I think it’s also interesting to note how starkly they differ in terms of how acceptable they are to those within their parties. Note that Bernie is somewhere in between, although actually a little closer to Drumpf than to Clinton. Sorry, Bernie, Democrats just aren’t that into you.
That fight was lost a long time ago. To those who care enough to actively oppose socialism, all Democrats are socialists, and even the Clintons are socialists pretending to be moderate to trick us.
So Trump would only discouraging those who like Bernie but are afraid–what? That he’s unelectable? So what? Are they going to vote third-party then? Vote for a fascist?
The difference is that Sanders works within the legislative system, while Hillary goes behind closed doors to try to make a deal, not with Congressmen, but with rich “stakeholders”–which then falls apart in the light of day.
Hillary thinks she’s smarter than the constitutional system, and can make a deal behind the scenes. So far she’s not, and she can’t. That’s why she’s a bad leader.
Do I need to cut and paste all the Madison Guaranty stuff, and the Clinton Foundation stuff? I guess I should have done this already.
Yes, it’s there; yes, it’s ethically dubious; no, it’s not the emails (which are an appetizer for what’s coming if she’s nominated); yes, some of it is very eyebrow-raising.
In some of the very threads you’ve posted in, there have been plenty of posts about people who intend to do both of these (though not at the same time, obviously).
National hero? That’s the criteria? Because he wrote a book about a lousy car a few decades earlier?
Joe DiMaggio was a national hero, but that doesn’t mean that people would have elected him president 30 years after his most notable achievement, which was banging Marilyn Monroe.
Considering how important it is that there never again be a Republican president, you really ought to make at least a half-hearted effort to persuade such people, when you encounter them, to do as you plan to, hold their noses, and pull the lever for her.
I’m having a difficult time understanding what you’re saying.
I do try to sway people I know, most won’t have any of it, and I end up on the defensive for Hilary.
Edit. That’s one of the reason’s I’m sick of this… I’ve been on FB trying to pimp Hilary in the tragic event that Bernie doesn’t win.
It’s not easy when you’re someone who’s trying to make an educated decision, and you’re trying to balance the believable with the bullshit.
I think Bernie is a “we” person, as he advertises himself to be. I think Hilary is playing a game.
It’s not as if I can verify all the charges made against Hilary, or would even expect to be able to.
People here are smart, and can craft an argument… but I can only assume that people who challenge me might have their own agenda. I value these boards a great deal. I try to always keep an open mind. I just hear a lot of noise from both sides. I don’t always fully understand things, but I’m almost positive she’s done things that she knew was wrong… and has probably crossed lines I would find objectionable.
Of course, there’s also the fact that she voted for the Iraq war, she was late with the LGBT support… which she even claims wasn’t because of politics, and just ‘couldn’t at the time’.
How late does Hillary have to be when she was the first- first lady to walk in a gay pride parade in New York in 2000?
How anti-union is she when she has the endorsement of 20 of the strongest unions in the country?
How cozy is she to Wall street when she’s voted with Sanders and Elizabeth Warren 93% of the time and therefore considered a hard core liberal in the Senate? The reason the Republicans have a rigid on for her is exactly because she’s a liberal who’s been around a long time, and is the most recognized woman in the world.
Bernie doesn’t want to compromise. Admirable, but how do you work with Ted Cruz? In Bernie’s case you don’t. You stay an independent.
The smears and innuendo against Hillary has, for a long time been Republican talking points that are convenient to pick up when running against her.
You can say it all you want. But at age 39, Bernie was not just a regular member of the Socialist Workers Party, but an elector candidate. Anti-Stalinist? Yes. Anti-Leninist? Uh, no.
89 percent of independents might vote for a black or a woman, and 58 percent are willing to vote for the right Muslim. But just 49 percent are willing to consider a socialist:
Gallup has yet to check how many are willing to vote for a socialist who used to be a Communist. But I gonna say – less.
Communist no more? Certainly that is better than still being an acolyte of Trotskyite permanent, non-metaphoric, revolution. But Sanders still has that streak of leftist purity that would be ballot box poison. And for some good reasons. For example, the man is, out of the purest ultra-progressive motives, planning to make global warming worse:
The Clinton Foundation stuff is literally right wing conspiracy theory shit, no more relevant or realistic a scandal as the Vince Foster shit was from the 90s. As for Madison Guaranty–we’ve already had one politically motivated investigation into Whitewater and all it ever found was Bill lied about getting a blowjob. Are you a Republican? Because you’re just repeating their fabrications about the Clintons.
The Clintons aren’t saints, but when you say they’ve committed “high crimes” (as you have elsewhere) and have committed serious ethical lapses it’d be nice if you used ones which haven’t been explored at depth and shown to lack any merit and to be nothing more than the fever-dreams of Matt Drudge types.